1996 (5) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....production log had not been accounted for in R.G. 1. Consequent to initiation of proceedings the Collector held that goods to that extent had not been accounted in R.G. 1 and has been removed without payment of duty. He therefore confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed penalty of rupees one lakh. 2. Arguing for the appellants Legal Manager of the appellant company submits that quantities alleged to have been removed were worked out on the basis of entries in the production log maintained by unskilled workers. Comparison with R.G. 1 not only revealed shortages but compared to production log also indicated the excesses. If excesses and shortages are adjusted the duty liability if at all would be only Rs. 3 lakhs. Actually howeve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....odi & Co. Chartered Accountants (Annexure-III of Supplementary Paper Book) was submitted in the Court. This certificate indicates Sulphonic Acid Reconciliation for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. He submits that there is no evidence to prove the charge of clandestine removal. In respect of this unit the appellants are paying excise duty of Rs. 30 crores annually. If the intention was to evade duty the excess quantities would not have been recorded in the production record on a consistent basis. In fact there has been a constant excess and shortage in the production logs which are maintained by unskilled workers. In support of his contention that in such circumstances the charge of clandestine removal cannot be sustained he cites the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uction in the R.G. 1, which plea was taken before the Collector, has not been rebutted. In these circumstances, in the absence of any affirmative or corroborative evidence it would be difficult to sustain the charge of clandestine removal. In Prabhavati Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 522 it was held by this Tribunal that allegation based only on one document i.e. daily spinning and winding register, is not enough to establish the charge of clandestine removal. In the case of Kashmir Vanaspati (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 655 it was held by this Tribunal that note book maintained by labourers containing unauthenticated entries and over-wri....