TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. E/1376/05-B and imposing a penalty of Rs. 21,95,88,296/- on the applicant and various other amounts by way of penalty as per the order, imposed on the other applicants. 2.The learned Counsel for the applicant argued all the applications together by referring to the record of stay application in Appeal No. E/1376/05-B. 3.During the surprise visit on 16th July 1994 by the Central Excise Officers from Allahabad on the premises of M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, the stock of excisable goods was physically checked and the statutory record scrutinised as per the rules. It was noticed that several trucks loaded with glass sheets removed from the warehouse were ready to leave the factory premises. The statutory records and other p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also found from the inter-office memos, that production as reported in respect of different plants did not match with the figures of production either given in RT-I or on DDR. A report on Physical Verification and Valuation of fixed Assets, showed the production of 1992-93 as 1,53,35,550 sq. mtr. on 2 mm basis against the production shown on RT-12 as 1,46,77,184.55 sq. mtr. on 2 mm basis. From the monthly production/packing/despatch report prepared by the assessee for their private use, production figures as reflected on MPPDR were compared with that of RT-12 returns and suppression of a total production of 29,13,711 involving duty of Rs. 2,50,55,816/- was noticed. Discrepancies were also noticed from the statement sent by the assessee to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Plant Manager having 40 years of experience in manufacture of glass sheets, and compared with the production shown in the respective years on the RT-12 returns filed by the assessee from time to time. Show cause notice was accordingly issued to the assessee on 12th July 1995 to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 20,95,88,296/- should not be recovered from them under the proviso (1) to the provisions of Section 11A(1) and as to why penalties should not be imposed on them under Rule 173Q for contravening the provisions of Rules 52A, 53, 173G, 226 and 173F of the Central Excise Rules and as to why the Land, Building, Plant etc. and the truck as well as glass sheets, which were seized on 20th July 1994, should not be confiscated under R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he plants as given by the General Manager (Technical) and the Plant Manager without taking into consideration the declared installation capacity as per some documents such as licence dated 7th December 1972 as revised on 20th November 1979, which shown the annual capacity of manufacture of sheet glass as 8 million sq. mtr. on 2 mm thickness basis and the communication dated 31st July 1989 from the Government of India to the assessee in connection with its application dated 16-5-89 showing that the application was registered for additional annual capacity of 16 sq. mtr. on 2 mm thickness basis. 6.It is clear from the record that despite the elaborate show cause notice and indication to the assessees about the statements of the General Man....