TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant firm under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each was imposed on the Directors, authorised signatories, supervisor, Chief Chemist and on the Chartered Accountant was also imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Portland cement. On 19-8-1991, the officers of the Central Excise, visited the factory of the appellants. After verification of the record, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that - (1) the appellants received lime stone from M/s. Sangam Lime Co. and M/s. M.K. Minerals. As there was a restriction on the quantity of load a truck could carry; the challans were prepar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TS resulting in short accountal of cement. 3. After considering the reply, filed by the appellants, the impugned order was passed. 4. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, in respect of allegation no. (1) submits that the appellants have entered that much of quantity in their Form IV Register, which was actually received by them and was shown in the challans. He submits that the receipts of Dharm Kanta, for the weighment of the limestone were as per the entries made in the Form IV Register and the appellants also made payment on the basis of the quantity received and as per entries made in the Form IV Register. He, further, submits that the Revenue simply arrived at the average quantity of 1764 MTS per truck wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of M/s. Krishna Gopal & Co. M/s. Krishna Gopal & Co., who sold the lime stone to Sh. Rajesh Dalal vide bill No. 23, dated 4-3-1991 and the bill also showed that sales-tax was duly paid on this sale. Therefore, it cannot be said that the lime stone was received by the appellants. 7. In respect of allegation No. 4, he submits that consignments shown at Sl. No. 8 to 14 and mentioned in annexure to show cause notice, had been received by the appellants and were duly entered in the Form IV Register on 24-6-1990 and 5-4-1991 and the other consignments, which were shown in this annexure, were not received by the appellants. 8. In respect of allegation No. 5, the ld. Counsel submits that the allegation was based merely on the assum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived by the appellants. The appellants received lime' stone from M/s. Sangam Lime Co. and M/s. M.K. Minerals. The challans, vide which the lime stone was received the weigh bridge slips were produced by the appellants, which shows that the appellants received the lime stone as per record maintained by them. The allegation is based on the fact that lime stone received during the period from Jan. to Feb., 1991, the appellants received lime stone @ 13 to 19 MT per truck and it has ever 10 MTS per truck. In this regard, no investigation was conducted from M/s. M.K. Minerals, which was one of the suppliers of the lime stone. 13. It cannot be assumed that if the appellants received more quantity of lime stone per truck during some perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Krishna Gopal & Co. and vide Bill No. 23, dated 4-3-1991, M/s. Krishna Gopal & Co. sold the lime stone to one Rajesh Dalal. The Revenue is not disputing this bill, vide which the lime stone was sold by Krishna Gopal & Co. to Rajesh Dalal. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the appellants that they had not received the quantity of lime stone. 16. In respect of allegation No. 4, the contention of the Revenue is that 14 consignments of lime stone were received by the appellants, which were not entered in the Form IV Register. The contention of the appellants is that out of these 14 consignments, they had received only two consignments and these were duly entered in their Form IV Register. There is nothing on record to show th....