2002 (2) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o as 'Firm') with equal amount of penalty, and further imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively on appellant Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The appellants have got two units. They were engaged in the manufacture of Insulated Wires and Cables. On receipt of intelligence that they were indulging in the clandestine removal of wires and cables, search was conducted on 11-9-1996 of both their units and certain incriminating documents were found which were taken into possession through Panchnama dated 11-9-1996. As a result of physical stock taking of the finished goods, some goods were found unaccounted for and the same were seized for which separate proceedings were initiated. On scrutiny of the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lways, DGS&D and DOT, and as such on merits also the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the learned JDR has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. 6. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed after the remand of the case by the Tribunal earlier vide order dated 1-3-2000. In that order, the Tribunal directed the Department to supply the copies of all documents to the appellants or to allow them inspection of the documents. The Commissioner thereafter complied with this direction of the Tribunal before deciding the case. The appellants were allowed to inspect the records. Even Shri An....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... inspection of the wires and cables supplied by the appellants to the Railways, was corroborated by the inspection register. Shri Rajesh Dubey, authorised signatory of the appellants' firm also admitted the maintenance of two parallel sets of invoices. He further admitted that they were manipulating the records in such a manner that the first and second copy of the GPIs/Invoices was showing payment of duty @ 25% adv. and the third and fourth copy was showing payment of duty @ 15% adv. and 20% adv. and that they were charging full duty @ 25% adv. from the Railways and the DGS&D, but paying concessional duty @ 15% adv. and 20% adv. to the Central Excise Department. The charging of duty at full rate from the Railways and the DGS&D also stood c....