TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad cleared 353.735 MTs of Sodium Silicate valued at Rs. 15,91,808/- to M/s. Vijay Detergent Products (P) Ltd., Palakkad without payment of duty under 36 invoices during the period 5-7-2002 to 7-9-2002. The officer collected the said invoices and another set of invoices from the appellants and also recorded their statements. A register showing the particulars of clearances effected under the said 36 invoices was also recovered from the appellants. Invoice books containing invoices for the period from 1-4-2001 to 12-9-2002 were also collected by the investigating officer. From the results of these investigations, it appeared to the department that the appellants had clandestinely cleared the above quantity of Sodium Silicate (Neutral Grade) d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....002 to 6-9-2002. He submitted that the above fact had not been considered in the impugned order. It was pointed out that the price of Sodium Silicate at the relevant time was about Rs. 4,000 per MT and that the labour charge collected by the appellants was at the rate of Rs. 350/- per MT as evidenced by the above commercial invoices. Was it department's case that the appellants were collecting Rs. 350/- instead of Rs. 4000/- from their customer to evade duty of excise @ 16% ?, counsel posed. In this connection, he further submitted that it had not been alleged by the department that the appellants had received from their customer any amount over and above what was mentioned in the above invoices. The lower authorities had demanded duty from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f goods. In support of this argument, ld. counsel relied on Premium Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 165 (Tri.-Del). On the other hand, ld. JDR relied on the decision in K. Manickam v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 371 (Tri.) in support of his argument that the finding of clandestine removal of goods was sustainable against the appellants on the strength of the above register coupled of the statements of the Managing Partner and the Factory Manager. 3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that the lower appellate authority sustained the demand of duty on the ground that the condition laid down in para (2) of Notification No. 214/86 was not complied with by the appellant....