TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as detailed therein). 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of two wheelers (Scooters and Mopeds). On carrying out physical verification of their finished goods, 276 pieces of different models of two wheelers were found in excess as compared to stock entered in the RG-I register and 365 nos. of two-wheelers involving duty of Rs. 6,23,391/- and Cess of Rs. 4,870/- were found short. The statement of Shri Bhawnesh Vij, General Manager was recorded at the spot but he could not give any plausible explanation for these discrepancies in the stock. He however, got time to explain the shortage and excess of the stock by 21-1-2001. The excess found two wheelers were seized. On completion of investigation, show cause notice was served on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized representative, Shri Ashwani and independent witnesses. Even Shri Bhawnesh Vij, General Manager of the appellants-company could not offer any explanation at that time for the excess and shortages of the goods. He only sought time till 21-1-2001 for explaining the position. But on that date, he did not submit any explanation. It is only on 14-3-2001, the appellants sent a letter along with their alleged computer print-out to explain the excess and shortage. But the same had been rightly not accepted by the authorities below as it could easily be prepared later on to create evidence, and in order to avoid penal action. It was sent only on 14-3-2001 after expiry of the period of 2 months from the date of physical verification conducted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counted vehicles had also been rightly ordered and redemption fine for getting those redeemed had also been correctly imposed. The ratio of the law laid down in the following cases referred by the Counsel is not attracted to the facts of the present case :- (i) Indra Metal Works v. CCE, Pune [1999 (108) E.L.T. 745 (Tribunal)] (ii) CCE, Patna v. Universal Polythelene Industries [2001 (130) E.L.T. 228 (Tri. - Kolkata)] (iii) Nav Bharat Paper P. Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad [2004 (165) E.L.T. 564 (Tri. - Delhi)] (iv) Emmtex Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2003 (151) E.L.T. 170 (Tri. - Delhi)] In those cases, the goods were found lying in the factory but were not entered in the RG-I register and for want of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y them authorized the authorities to get the guarantee bond encashed and as such no prior notice was required to be given to the appellants for that purpose. The observations of the Tribunal in Indra Metal Works (supra) that the adjudicating authority wrongly straight-way appropriated the security amount of the assessee, is not attracted to the case of the appellants. The bond furnished by the appellants did not contain any condition for serving prior notice on them for encashment of the bank guarantee furnished by them. 9. In the light of discussion made above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, at all. However keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 2 Lakhs and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
