1997 (5) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. R.K. Talajia, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. -  It is contended that, out of the demand of duty of Rs. 54.49 lacs (approximately) Rs. 45,000/- is not disputed, and Rs. 1.00 lac has already been paid, thus leaving the amount not required to be deposited is Rs. 53.04 lacs. A penalty of Rs. 50.00 lacs under Rule 173Q has also been imposed. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It did not enter in the register quantities of spares subsequently purchased by it, or of these spares which it subsequently cleared without payment of duty. It is contended that this position has been known throughout to the department in that various officers, who took the stock of the goods did not find anything wrong. He further contends that the Commissioner has not considered these facts whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deposit. It would appear that the RG1 register, maintained by the applicant did not have a separate section for each kind of spares "bought out" (of which there are about 3500 varieties) or the goods manufactured by it. The only basis for the applicant's claim is its internal records such as issue slips etc. It is no doubt correct prima facie that the applicant has been buying some of these goods....