TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (12) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16,539.00. Asstt. Collector had granted an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The truck was seized and the same was confiscated by granted redemption on payment of Rs. 50,000/-. The penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on the truck owner Shri Siya Ram Gupta, Rs. 1,000/- on Shri Naresh, driver of the truck and Rs. 1,000/- on Shri Mangal Prasad, Khalasi of the truck. 2. The charges against the appellants are that they had admitted to have removed the goods from the factory without cover of gate pass. The officers had seized the truck on Malwan Bindiki Road at 1.00 hrs. in the midnight of 23/24-7-1991. On questioning the driver of the truck could not produce the documents. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examination of the pleas found the explanation to be not satisfactory. He has held that it is immaterial whether the road outside the factory gate is called "Malwan Kunwarpur Road" or "Malwan Bindiki Road"; unless the fact of the seizure on the road outside the factory gate is rebutted. He has held that it is an admitted fact that the contraband goods were seized outside the factory gate and that alone is material to the main issue. he has rejected the plea with regard to the documents having been prepared on the reasoning that the register they had been maintaining a Daily Material Report in loose sheets where the in-time and out-time of each vehicle is noted, shows that the only conclusion that can be drawn for the entries on this loose s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r one G.P. 1 of goods manufactured by it and hence a final order. 3. It was argued before ld. Collector that there was no intention to remove the goods clandestine without payment of duty and the vehicle after repair was being tested by the driver on which point the lorry had been seized. The Collector has noted that gate pass No. 1087 which was supposed to have accompanied the said consignment was found lying, unissued in the appellant's factory. It neither bore the signature of the authorized representative nor the counter signature of the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. He has noted that as per the appellant's own admission the duty on the said Galvanised sheets had not been debited. He has rejected the reason given by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... trouble the Lorry Driver went to bring some engine parts and came at 11.30 p.m. and rectified the trouble and started for destination. In the meantime, he had taken its weight on 30 tons weigh-bridge and weighment slip was being sent to the despatch officer. He has stated that during weighment, Central Excise Officers seized the register. He has stated that neither any despatch paper nor excise gate pass of said lorry was received by him nor Lorry Driver. He stated that at S. No. 16 on the register, Lorry No. UMO-9189, transporter name and signature was entered. Outward time was not written in register but this truck was started at 2400 hours on 23-7-1991 for destination. General Manager Shri Salig Ram Bhogal's statement was recorded, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts valued at Rs. 2,80,303.00 along with the vehicle. The appellants also filed a detailed reply confirming these facts. On going through these facts, it is clear that the Asstt. Collector has not appreciated the entire facts and the plea of break-down of the vehicle and its completion of repair at midnight and during the trial run, the vehicle having been apprehended and seized. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the vehicle was authorized to be taken out from the factory for onward destination or was it on trial run after repair by the driver? The driver's statement has not been placed for scrutiny. However, it is very clear from the statement of the Khalasi Shri Mangal Prasad that the vehicle was on trial run and ....