2004 (7) TMI 570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s cleared clandestinely and seized. The penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act). Besides the goods seized in the factory were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. Laminated HDPE woven fabrics valued at Rs. 3,98,317/- (5,657.60 kg.) lying unaccounted in the factory were also confiscated with a redemption fine of Rs. 40,000/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the director of the appellants company, Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Vivek Kolhatkar, supervisor and authorised signatory of the assessee company and penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellants was also imposed. 2. The facts in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it is engaged in the business from 1983 and they are required to maintain such simple records clearly and carefully when they are opting/availing exemption HDPE granules and also availing exemption under Notification No 4/97 (Sr. No. 57) for finished goods viz. Laminated HDPE fabrics Chapter 3926.90, which are manufactured out of HDPE on which Modvat is not availed. But in such cases the duty is attracted on intermediate goods viz. Plastic tapes/strips failing under Ch. 39.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attract Central Excise duty by virtue of Notification. No. 4/97 Sr. No. (55). If they have given such separate accounts to Range alongwith monthly R.T.12 return, then they will have to pay central excise duty on 'plastics tapes/st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fact of establishing availment of credit, mere statements cannot be used against the appellants. Whether a person has taken Modvat credit or otherwise is matter of central excise record and requires no support of any recorded statement. It has also come on record that the appellants has two channels of manufacture :- one, where the inputs credit is taken and finished products pay duty and the other, where no such credit is taken and the goods are cleared without payment of duty. In the absence of any positive evidence to point out that, the appellants had taken credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of 5 rolls of fabrics under seizure, I hold that the said goods are eligible for full exemption in terms of the Notification. It is nobo....