2005 (12) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passing of the impugned order by the Commissioner. The learned consultant appearing for the applicants, submitted that there have been two remands in the past by the Tribunal in the same matter, and that this is the third time that the applicants have approached this Tribunal. He submitted that, initially when the applicants had approached the Tribunal in 2001 against the order of the Commissioner, Interim Stay was granted on the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs, which came to be modified by order dated 4-1-2001 to Rs. 1.5 lakhs having regard to the financial hardship of the applicants. The learned consultant then pointed out that, thereafter when the applicants approached the Tribunal again after the first remand and making of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....raph 90 of the impugned order. Reference was made to paragraph 14 of the show cause notice for pointing out that, it was alleged therein that, the DTA unit did not produce and clear any goods as shown by the assessee in the statutory records maintained in respect thereof, and that the goods shown as produced and cleared from DTA unit were, in fact, produced in the EOU on the imported machine. It was also alleged that the registration for the DTA unit had been obtained by the assessee for using that unit as a facade for covering up the illegal activities of the EOU with an intent to evade payment of duty on the goods produced and cleared from the EOU by wilfully mis-stating and suppressing the facts, and that the so-called DTA unit was virtu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e not concerned with the removal of bottles other than 13,18,407 PET bottles, in respect of which the impugned order has been passed. 5. The learned Commissioner has come to the conclusion on the basis of the record in paragraph 89 of the impugned order, that the wastage claimed by the assessee as 31.25% was abnormal, and that from the record it appeared that the wastage was only 6.5%. It was held that statutory records and RT-12 returns did not indicate emergence of waste, as claimed. In paragraph 91 of the impugned order, considering the claim of the assessee regarding sale of 10 lakh bottles in domestic area, it was found that as against the permission of 10 lakh bottles, the assessee had clear 2,16,250 bottles in legitimate mann....