TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise duty, without proper accountal of production and clearance in the statutory records, thus suppressing the facts with intent to evade payment of duty. It was also alleged that the above facts were discovered on scrutiny of records. Revenue found that the appellant manufactured and cleared 208 ingot moulds to Indian Iron & Steel Co. and other agencies, thereby evading duty to the tune of Rs. 11,49,683.47. The appellant was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why the aforesaid duty be not recovered under Rule 9(2) and why a penalty be not imposed upon it under Rule 173Q. 1.2 On adjudication, after consideration of the reply to show cause notice and the submissions during personal hearing, the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as scrap since ingot moulds were not manufactured frequently. Later on, it was realised that duty was required to be paid. Accordingly, the appellant paid on such scrap @ Rs. 80/- per M.T. under Tariff Heading 7203.10. The aforesaid was done admittedly without having filed, and getting approval of, classification list for the said goods. 2.3 Ld. consultant has further urged that the adjudicating authority has erred in classifying the scrapped/defective ingot moulds under Tariff Heading 8454.00 and not under 7203.10/7204.10. It is not denied that the ingot moulds were sold as scrap and at a far lower value than O.K. ingot moulds would have fetched. This fact by itself, submits the ld. Consultant, proves that the ingot moulds were d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cleared as scrapped ingot moulds". Ld. JDR further submits even if the `ingot moulds' were assumed to be defective, they do not cease to ingot moulds for that reasons unless it is proved that such ingot moulds were fit only for recovery of metal to treat them as `waste and scrap' in terms of the definition of that expression. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the appellant to prove that the ingot moulds were defective to the extent of being fit only for recovery of metal. Drawing attention to the evidence at pages 19 to 21 of the appeal papers relied upon by the appellants, ld. JDR points out that except the heading of the statements indicating "rejected/scrap C.I. ingot mould", these do not show that these were sold as "scrap",....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of that fact. Subsequent disclosure and payment of duty on 31-3-1989 on their own does not take away from the fact of suppression of removal of goods without payment of duty and limitation of five years would be available from the date of removal of the goods when the duty ought to have been paid. Aforesaid suppression gets compounded by the fact that the appellant has not been able to prove by any evidence that the `goods' removed were `scrap'/ defective ingot moulds. He, therefore, submits that limitation of five years has been rightly invoked. 4.1 We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are of the view that in the face of the adjudicating authority's finding about lack of any evidence to the effect t....