TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (10) TMI 554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....einafter referred to as the applicant) and S/Shri Kalpesh A. Patel, Executive Director, T.S. Choudhari, Dy. General Manager, of the applicant company and Shri Virendra B. Shah, Partner in M/s. Veer Associates, Ahmedabad. 2. The applicant was registered under the Central Excise Act, to manufacture glycerine, detergent powder, toilet soap etc.; at his factory at 16/B, Post- Mandali, Mehsana. Acting upon the intelligence about evasion of Central Excise duty by the applicant, the officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion, Mumbai Zone (Now called as Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence) searched the factory premises of the applicant on 17-9-1999 and seized certain incriminating record. The scrutiny of record and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 32F(6) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, about investigation of the case were intimated to the Revenue and the applicant. In the hearing on 11-12-2001, the applicant submitted revised annexures about admitted duty liability and reduced the accepted duty liability from Rs. 25,97,800/- to Rs. 16,38,000/-. In the said annexures, the applicant disputed demand issued in respect of certain consignments and also claimed benefit of cum duty price. Since the Revenue requested for adjournment of the hearing, the case was adjourned to 12-3-2002. The revised annexures submitted by the applicant were forwarded to the Revenue for comments. The Commission postponed the hearing fixed on 12-3-2002 to 20-3-2002. The applicant sought adjournment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,091/- had been evaded by the applicant. Copy of the Commissioner (Inv.)'s Report was given to Revenue and also supplied to the applicant on payment of fees. On applicant's request, hearing fixed on 12-8-2002, was adjourned to 17-10-2002, vide Interim Order No. 62/C.Ex/2002, dated 16-8-2002. The Commission adjourned the hearing fixed on 17-10-2002 to 25-10-2002. 5. The hearing was held on 25-10-2002. 6. On 25-10-2002 the applicants M/s. Nirma Ltd. S/Shri T.S. Chaudhary, Dy. General Manager, Kalpesh A. Patel, Executive Director, Virendra Shah, Partner of Veer Associates, Ahmedabad were represented by S/Shri Vikram Nankani, Advocate, M.A. Patel, Consultant, S.K. Verma, Manager (Finance) of M/s. Nirma Ltd. and Ms. Tejal Shah, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the Batchwise Dispatch Register, the error was that only the name of M/s. Veer Associates was mentioned. It should be correctly read as Popatlal Enterprise A/c. Veer Associates. The Revenue did not find the name of M/s. Popatlal Enterprise anywhere in the batchwise register. Since there is an invoice in the name of M/s. Veer Associates which reads as "Popatlal A/c. Veer Associates", the duty of Rs. 2,39,400/- involving 19000 kgs. should be deemed to have been paid through invoice in the name of "Popatlal A/c. Veer Associates". The ld. Counsel further submitted that they are not contesting the time-bar issue, even in respect of the quantity not included in the show cause notice. The ld. Advocate while concluding submitted that they are r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in his report. If Rs. 6,72,223/- is added towards the duty in respect of consignments not covered in the Show Cause Notice then the total duty liability will work out to Rs. 26,83,323/-. 10. The Revenue submitted that the applicant has admitted the duty liability as they have no other option but to do that. Hence immunity from interest, fine, penalty and prosecution may not be granted to the applicant. 11. The ld. Advocate of the applicant submitted that the applicant will not like to contest the duty amount of Rs. 53,632/-, the benefit of which was given by Commissioner (Inv.) on account of Turnover Tax and would even admit that amount in the spirit of settlement. Hence he submitted that the applicant is willing to admit Rs....