1997 (10) 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

....pellants are engaged in the manufacture of Footwear Soles of various kinds falling under Chapter Heading 6401.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On the basis of intelligence report the factory premises of the appellants was visited by Central Excise Officers on 29-10-1993. They inspected the statutory as well as private records of the appellants. On the basis of the verification of the records the officers found that there was discrepancy in the matter of entries in RG 1 Register. On the basis of the information collected and on the basis of statements given by the partners of the firm a Show Cause Notice was issued on 22-4-1994 alleging attempted clandestine removal of 4,187 pairs of PVC soles (with leather insert), clearance of 389 pair....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in RG 1 Register. Further, relying on the entries in the private diary recovered from the possession of Shri V.N. Khemka one of the partners the Collector found that during the period from 1-10-1993 to 28-10-1993, out of 57,336 pairs of PVC soles (with leather inserts) only 3,335 pairs were entered in the RG 1 Register. Likewise out of 29,193 pairs of PVC soles manufactured and soles shown in the private diary only 11,709 pairs have been entered in the RG 1 Register. Further, as against 13,996 pairs of full leather shown in the private diary, 37,240 pairs have been shown in the RG 1 Register. Collector, therefore, held that 54,001 pairs of PVC soles (with leather inserts) valued at Rs. 32,40,060/- at the rate of Rs. 60/- per pair and 17,48....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of Sarswati Engineering v. C.C.E. in support. He also submitted that the statements relied on by the Collector were inadmissible in evidence as they were coercively extracted. Further, ld. Counsel also submitted that the entries in the private diary had neither been authenticated nor verified by any responsible person from the appellants' side. He further submitted that the entire proceedings were vitiated by the action of the officers who conducted the inspection and who had seized the stock and the records merely on the basis of marginal or minor discrepancies on the part of the appellants. Summing up the arguments ld. Counsel stated that it was for the Department who prove by adequate evidence any allegation of clandestine removal whi....