2010 (3) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondent was partly accepted and it was held that there was no material to suggest that there was any clandestine removal of the case and hence no penalty was imposed upon the respondent. M/s Mico Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon is engaged in the manufacture of Safety/toughened and edged worked glass, both tinted as well as non-tinted, for automobiles and architectural purpose falling under Chapter 7003.00 and 7004.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. they have been availing modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'the Rules'). On 15.7.1998, the officers of Central Excise (Preventive), Division-II, Gurgaon visited the premises of the factory and in the followup ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the respondent had habitually been removing finished goods without payment of duty. Learned counsel has submitted that while imposing the penalty upon the respondent, the period from 1.7.1998 to 15.7.1998, was taken into consideration and penalty was imposed on the entire goods. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the goods manufactured from 1.7.1998 to 15.7.1998, had not been removed out of the factory premises, although they had not been entered in the Register. Learned counsel further submits that the shortage, which was detected, was on account of wastage and non-recording of certain invoices in the Register, however, as the goods had not been removed out of the factory premises, hence, no inference can be dra....