TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sikhar Marbles (P) Ltd., being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 3-1-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. 2. The matter relates to the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,45,075/- in respect of the marble tiles alleged to have been removed without payment of Central Excise dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lam, JDR, is present for the respondents/Revenue. 4. Shri A.L. Mathur, Consultant, submitted that the private record was maintained by the Sorter for his own purpose and did not reflect the excisable production and clearance. He submitted that all the entries were covered by the excise gate passes and that except those quantities which the appellants themselves had admitted to have been re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. I find that the case is based on the details as contained in the private records maintained by the Sorter of the marble tiles one Thomas George. The Director of the Company in his statement recorded on 19-11-1991 had admitted that some quantity of marble tiles had not been entered in the RG-1 Register and the same had been removed without payment of Central Excise duty and without issue of gat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liability in respect of the marble tiles moved without payment of duty and had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,969/- out of the total demand of Rs. 1,45,075/-. The appellants were working under the self-removal procedure under which a great trust is reposed in the assessees. Taking note of this fact and taking into account the admission of the appellants, I confirm the amount of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- ....