TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (8) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tic mixer. They were not licensed under the Central Excise law nor had they filed any declaration claiming the benefit of any Notification. On receipt of intelligence, their premises were searched. It was found that in a majority of cases, the goods were delivered under "kachha delivery challan". Goods totally valued at Rs. 7,61,406/- were seized. Accounts of the manufacturers were also seized. Statements of concerned partners and buyers were recorded. At the conclusion of the investigations, show cause notice dated 19-4-1993 was issued. It was alleged that duty amounting to Rs. 30,30,170/- was short levied on account of goods clandestinely cleared by M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries. It was alleged that the seized goods were liable to con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndustries were represented by Shri A.V. Phadnis alongwith Shri G.C. Biradar, Advocates. The partners of Shri Vardhaman Polymer Industries vis. P.D. Jain and A.D. Jain were represented by Shri Biradar. Shri Biradar also represented the buyers Shri Rajesh O. Mehta, Sampatraj D. Jain and J.N. Agarwal. Shri Gursharan Singh, Consultant was appearing for S/Shri A.D. Dagh, Jayantilal A. Shah (Aidalmallji) and Nemi Devdar. Shri K.V. Sahashrabudhe, Consultant represented Shri Vinod Kumar Agrawal. Revenue was represented by Shri K.L. Ramtake, JDR. 5. On behalf of M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries Shri Phadnis submits that out of the 66 buyers who purchased the goods manufactured by M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries, the department had questione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in the case of Ashok India Engineering Works v. CCE [1998 (98) E.L.T. 659]. He submits that the payment of penalty to the department would cause undue hardship but conceeds that his clients have not filed affidavit on record to this effect. 7. Arguing for the buyers, Shri Biradar submits that Shri Sampatraj Jain was not a noticee in this show cause notice at all, although he has filed reply and that he has been penalised. As regards Shri Agarwal and Shri Rajesh O. Mehta, he has stated that they had denied having received any goods from M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries. 8. Shri Gursharan Singh states that his client Jayantilal A. Shah had refused having received any goods from M/s. Vardhaman and Shri A.D. Dagh had received th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nery installed. We also heard the submissions that the electricity consumed would not justified this amount of production. We have also heard his claim on the inadequacy of the investigation and the denial of the fact of purchase by certain buyers. In our opinion, at this stage of prima facie consideration, this argument cannot be considered. Whether various submissions made by the applicants were considered by the ld. Commissioner is also a point to be taken up at the time of final hearing of the case. It is not that the accounts on which the estimates were made were not maintained by the manufacturers. If it is the claim that the kachha invoices were substitued by the applicants, then the contra entry should exist in the register showing ....