2005 (5) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated against them in two Show Cause Notices issued by the DGCEI, Chennai under Central Excise Act, 1944, namely, Show Cause Notice No. 8/2005, dated 7-3-2005, for confiscation of cash seized and another Show Cause Notice No. 23/2005, dated 12-5-2005, demanding duty of Rs. 30,40,872/- in respect of undervaluation of plywood cleared by the applicant. S/Shri B.L. Bengani, Managing Director, S.K. Bothra, Director, and M.C. Promod Kumar, Director of the applicant-firm, are the co-applicants. They have filed separate applications seeking waiver of penalty and immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri S. Venkatachalam, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the applicant-firm and co-applicants. S/Shri P. Srinivasan, SI....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g that all the connected invoices in this case were handed over to the department and the revenue representative has taken out clearances of two items of higher value in isolation to show that the particulars in the worksheet annexed to the application was not tallying with the departmental calculations. Given an opportunity, the Advocate submitted that, he was willing to sit with the departmental representative and reconcile all discrepancies in the entries. The Bench, in its interim order dated 18-1-2006, had directed the applicant as well as Revenue to sit together and arrive at correct figures, year-wise, in respect of sales made through depots in accordance with the instructions on this subject and submit a report. 6. Thereafte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s further contended that wherever there is a case of payment on a particular date/particular variety, the same could be claimed back by way of refund claim and it cannot be adjusted against fresh demand due for a particular month, or other period. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,80,653/- has to be added to the admitted duty liability. 9. The Advocate countered this argument by stating that the applicant have calculated the differential duty by deducting the duty already paid from the duty now payable and, further that, the department itself demanded only differential duty due in the Show Cause Notice and not the full duty. The amount of Rs. 1,80,653/- mentioned by the department pertains to the entire period and for the admitted period, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... invoice value which was evidenced from the chits and paper slips recovered during investigations from the applicants and their dealers and the seized cash represent the amount received from dealers for the differential value mentioned in the paper chits over and above the invoice amount. The allegation made in both the Show Cause Notices is one and the same, that is, regarding collection of excess value by way of chits and the Show Cause Notice dated 7-3-2005 is shown as relied upon document in the Show Cause Notice dated 12-5-2005. Thus, the issue involved is common to both notices. 11. The Bench observes from records that the applicants cleared goods to their depots at Bangalore, Mumbai and Ahmedabad raising invoices on payment o....