9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forged articles at the job workers' premises during the period 1-4-97 to 12-1-98 had not been returned to the appellants' factory nor cleared on payment of duty in terms of Rule 57F(5). The quantity of scrap so generated was worked out at 243.888 MTs valued at Rs. 9,99,940.80 involving duty of Excise of Rs. 1,49,991.12. This amount of duty has already been deposited by the party in two instalments, on 16-1-98 and 19-1-98. The department, however, framed a case for imposing penalty on the party and accordingly issued a show cause notice to them. This was contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the party under Rules 9(2), 57-I and 173Q a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been cleared by them or their job worker without payment of leviable Central Excise duty at the time & place of removal, in the manner prescribed for this purpose, without the cover of valid invoice and without accounting for the same in their statutory record of Central Excise. Thus, the party has suppressed the facts from the department with intend to evade payment of Central Excise duty". Obviously, the above allegation has been raised with reference to sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 57F as this Rule stood during the material period. Sub-rule (4) provided that any input, as such or partially processed, could be sent by the manufacturer of final product to any job worker under cover of a challan for the purpose of refining, reconditioni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid invoice and without accountal in their statutory record. This allegation is not exclusively directed against the appellants inasmuch as it involves their job workers as well. A perusal of the provisions of Rule 57F(5), whereunder the duty was paid on the scrap by the appellants, does not disclose any scope for penal action against the principal manufacturer. It is not in dispute, in this case, that the payment of duty on the scrap was being made for the last one decade by the appellants in accordance with the department's own formula. I further observe that, even if it be assumed that there was any suppression of relevant fact from the department, there is no evidence on record to show, on the appellants' part, any intent to evade paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
