TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (6) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the manufacture of Fire Bricks, Acid Resistant Bricks (A.R. Bricks) falling under sub-heading No. 6901.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2.2. Central Excise Officers, during the course of their visit to the factory premises on 21-12-1988, on the basis of stock verification found 89,912 pieces of A. R. Bricks valued at Rs. 3,02,006.70 were not accounted in statutory excise records. These were therefore seized but handed over under supurdinama to the factory management. It was also found that production of A. R. Bricks as indicated in Bhatta Register was much more than what was indicated in their RG I Account. It was alleged on the basis of this Bhatta Account that excess stock produced had not been accounted for in the RG 1 but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction removed clandestinely during the period from April, 1987 to December, 1988 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the appellants. 5. The appellants have come before us by way of appeal against the impugned order. The main points urged by the ld Advocate for the appellants before us are : (a) The physical verification of stock was not conducted by officers properly and infact goods alleged to have been removed without payment of duty were actually lying in the factory premises. The ld. Counsel for the appellant in support drew our attention to verification given by chartered Accountant on the basis of various records maintained to indicate that the stocks alleged to have been removed were infact available in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it is admitted position that goods were not accounted. Therefore, penal provisions are attracted. 1985 (22) E.L.T. 413 and 1993 (63) E.L.T. 117 were cited before us in this connection. He submitted that there was no reason for officers to have seized only part of the consignment on the ground that it was unaccounted and not a much larger part which the appellants claimed to have been lying in the factory at that time. Small calculation mistakes/errors benefit of which has already been given by the Collector cannot vitiate the authenticity of verification report. The verification report relating to stock of bricks found in the factory was signed by representative of factory management and no protest was made thereafter about wrong verific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ricks and not 89,912. He however, confined confiscation only to 89,912 bricks. Further on actual verification of documents, Collector arrived at stock verification of goods as 4,08,702 as against 6,02,542. This has been worked out on the basis of entries in the RG 1 and Bhatta Registers. It is also admitted by ld. Advocate for the appellants that Bhatta Register infact represents the total stock of goods manufactured. Further, perusal of entries made in RG I and Bhatta Register for the earlier period indicates that by and large entries in the Bhatta Register and RG I tally; it is only during the period it is alleged that goods were removed without payment of duty that there are wide variations in the entries made in Bhatta Register and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of difference between primary accounts and RG 1. The total quantity of such Bricks removed without payment of duty would therefore, be less by 91,412 bricks found to be in stock but unaccounted. 8. We do not find force in the plea that demand is worked out merely on assumptions. Bhatta Account admittedly indicates the total production in the factory. Goods in excess of RG 1 were from the Bhatta Account which is admitted also by the appellants. It is also on record that in past some goods were removed without gate passes and without paying the duty. There is no plausible explanation for the variation between the figure indicated in Bhatta Register and in statutory registers. Nor there is any basis for the plea of ld. Advocate tha....