TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (11) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant No. 5 was an employee of the firm. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tread rubber, falling under the then Central Excise Tariff Item No. l6(2) for the period covered under the impugned order. The Collector who adjudicated the proceedings originally passed an order dated 20-11-1986 demanding the duty amounting to Rs. 21,80,309.59 on the charge that the appellants had manufactured and removed goods for the period 1-4-1981 to 13-2-1984 contravening the provisions of excise law and accordingly penalties were also imposed on firm as well as on partners in addition to imposition of redemption fine. When the order was questioned by the appellants before the Tribunal on the point of denial of principles of natural justice, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The contention of the appellant that Rubicon Rubber and Rubicon are distinct and separate entities were negatived by the Collector. Shri Chidambaram contended that they are separate legal entities as "Rubicon" is the Partnership concern whereas "Rubicon Rubber" is the sole trading concern. Further he said that this issue is not relevant in this case in view of the fact that major portion of sales nearing 68% was to others who are not related persons and that approved price by the Department is the price at which the sales were made to those parties would constitute the basis for determination of the assessable value and not the resale price of Rubicon Rubber. This aspect was not dealt with by the Collector in the impugned order though it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on the date of raid as he was suspended from the Company for indiscipline on 24-1-1984 which was much earlier to the date of inspection. In his first statement he described the aforesaid private account as one "Private Account Book" without mentioning that any of the partners had seen this private account or initialled it. But in subsequent statement the signature of partners particularly the signature of partner James John was introduced for the first time. Shri Chidambaram contended that statement and private accounts maintained by Shri Balan could not be relied upon as he was suspended employee and inimical towards appellant firm. Further the learned Consultant said that Collector erred in relying upon the private account without corro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G-1 register. Certain invoices seized from Southern Roadways, Perumbavoor and ABT Parcel Services, Perumbavoor have also been found unaccounted in the RG-1 Register. This piece of evidence was not countered with evidence except mere objecting that anybody can book goods in the name of any person as the Transport Agencies do not insist the real ownership. The production shown in the Workers Chart seized is tallying with the seized production and sales register. Further the clearance of tread rubber as per the seized production and sales register tallies with the Bank Transactions from ABT Perumbavoor and with invoices seized from the Parcel Agencies. JDR said that if there is minor discrepancy in arriving at the exact figure and calculations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... removal of the goods. Further he pointed out that appellants' unit is small scale industry and was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. 80/80 dated 19-6-1980, 73/81 dated 25-3-1981 and 83/83 dated 1-3-1983 for the periods 81-82, 82-83 & 83-84. This exemption was allowed only for the year 83-84 under Notification No. 83/83 but the same was not considered by the Collector for the previous years under corresponding notifications. In respect of imposition of fine and penalties, he pointed out that after it was remanded from the Tribunal, while duty liability has been reduced from Rs. 21,80,309.59 to Rs. 18,31,378.01, instead of reducing the penalty proportionately Collector doubled the figure from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. ....