2004 (2) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mposed. A demand of Rs. 44,320/- plus Rs. 1,08,027/- was confirmed holding that the appellants had clandestinely removed Ceramic Fibre Rolls and Ceramic Fibre Blankets. Further, penalties of Rs. 44,320/- under Section 11AC and Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q were imposed. In the instant appeal the findings of the lower authorities are under challenge. 2. Heard both sides. So far as the seizure of the "Ceramic Fibre Part Blanket" is concerned, the appellants submit that though the goods were detained on 25-2-2000, the show cause notice was issued on 14-9-2000, which is beyond the period of six months, stipulated in Section 110(1) of the Customs Act. 1962, which has been made applicable to the Central Excise matters vide Notification No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellants was exhaustively examined by the adjudicating authority in his findings. It has been recorded that the statement of verification of stock in presence of the representative of the Noticee No. 1 (appellants in this appeal) i.e. Noticee No. 2 was prepared showing, detailed working of physical and recorded stock after considering clearances effected during the day and specifically shown the result of verification as "Result No. 9, 277 Rolls of Ceramic Fibre Blankets found short against the stock shown in the statutory records i.e. RG1 register". The order further examines the Log Book on the basis of which the appellants claimed that 277 Rolls were used captively for manufacture of 338 modules. It was observed that the log book n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants have pleaded that the authorities need not impose the mandatory penalty and penalty of lower amounts can be imposed. While, it is acceptable proposition that the penalty need not be equal to the duty demanded (evaded), the imposition of the penalty of equal amount is not illegal per se and can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of a given case. In this case, there being a clandestine removal which could be established only through a detailed stock verification and the appellants cleverly tried to cover up the evasion by claiming captive consumption, the penalty of Rs. 44,320/- imposed is sustainable. 7. The last issue relates to duty demand on the Modvat credit taken on the packing material used for packing exem....