TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Development as follows : 1983 - 53 tonnes 1984 - 194 tonnes 1985 - 354 tonnes The Chartered Accountant's certificate of 15-10-1985 showed the following figures: (a) 1983 (July to December 1983) - 68.91 tonnes (b) 1984 (January to December 1984) - 195.33 tonnes (c) 1985 (January to June 1985) - 203.10 tonnes The figure of 203.1 did not tally with the figure of 143.100 tonnes in the RG 1 Register entry for clearance during January to June 1985. 5. We see no infirmity in the Collector's conclusion based on figures supplied to the DGTD especially when the authenticity of the letter of DGTD has not been assailed. We are also unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate that penalty proceedings could not have been adjudicated separately. 6. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. [Assent per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)]. - These are appeals filed with reference to the Orders of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 23-6-1988 and 28-10-1988. 2. The learned Counsel stated that the facts of the case briefly are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal returns filed by the appellants were not available and appeared to have been destroyed in the usual course. The information supplied by the office of the DGTD was thus not based on any records. 6. The appellants further submitted that the statutory records were correctly maintained and the production accounted for therein was correct. As regards the discrepancy alleged in the show cause notice with regard to the accountal of raw materials, it was submitted that the alleged case was not made out because some of the raw materials, though purchased by the appellants, were sold as such to the various parties outside the factory premises and, therefore, there was no need to account for them in the register of raw materials in Form-IV. 7. The said letter of DGTD did not contain the source of their information. 8. The learned Collector has wrongly observed that the Assistant Development Officer had mentioned in his letter dated 22-1-1988 that the figures reported therein were submitted to his office month-wise. It appears that the production figures mentioned in the said letters were based on the records submitted to his office. The person, who had submitted these figures,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der imposing penalty under Rule 173Q was bad in law. 18. It was also his contention that the learned Collector had erred in demanding duty under Rule 9(2) itself provides for imposing of penalty for contravention of Rule 9(1). 18A. It was also their submissions that no penal action was called for. 19. And it was their alternative prayer that in any eventuality the order was harsh and the penalty was excessive. 20. The Ld. SDR stated that the demand for duty is based upon the figures of production of duplex paper from January to June, 1985 as reported by the appellants to the Development Officer of the DGTD. 21. The DGTD Officer could not show or supply the reports originally filed with them as the same had been destroyed in the routine course. 22. Furthermore even the figures supplied by the appellants on the basis of C.A.'s certificate was 203.10 tons i.e. in excess of the RG 1 figures by 60 tons for the corresponding period. This goes to show that there is definitely non-recording of production in the RG 1 register and corroborates the department's charge. 23. Further the appellants had not shown as to why the DGTD figures could not be relied upon. 24. Mor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thermore the learned Adjudicating Officer has observed, inter alia, that the figures in the RG 1 differ even from the figures indicated in the C.A.'s certificate and again the appellants have not rendered any satisfactory explanation for the difference. Similarly, in respect of the raw material account satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming. 31. Admittedly they had not accounted for the quantity in question in the records prescribed for raw material accounts and the arguments that it had been disposed of to other parties, even if true does not absolve them from the responsibility of maintaining proper accounts under the Central Excise Rules. 32. Further, it is interesting to observe that in respect of the year 1983-84 the same figures had been reported to the DGTD and were certified by the C.A. as had been entered into the RG 1. This is apparent from the facts narrated in the show cause notice at para 3 and in the Order-in-Original at Para 1 (Brief facts) and not contradicted by the assessee. This shows that both for excise as well as DGTD purpose the same basis was adopted by the assessee himself and some figures were recorded and reported for the year 1983-84. Therefor....