TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Suriyan Matches, Karadikulum. Since the above document did not indicate any sort of accounting for the purpose of payment of excise duty, the goods along with vehicle were seized under a Mahazar dated 26.09.2009 and further investigation was conducted. 3. Firstly, the officers of the Preventive Unit visited the premises of M/s. Suriyan Match Works, 6/813-814, Karadikulum, Kalagumalai and enquired about dispatch of 1194 bundles of safety matches and requested Shri Balasubramaniam, Manager of Suriyan Match Works, who was present at the factory to show challan for the above dispatch. Shri Balasubramaniam informed that they had not prepared any job work challan for return of the seized goods to the appellant but he showed some challans av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009 200 37 15.09.2009 200 39 15.09.2009 200 40 15.09.2009 100 Total 4081 6. On a scrutiny of the appellant's RG-1 and Stock Register with documents seized from M/s. Suriyan Match Works, Karadikulam, it is noticed that there is no entry of receipt of bundles from M/s. Suriyan Match Works, Karadikulam except 196 bundles received on 27.07.2009. Hence, it appeared that the appellants had clandestinely removed (4081-196) = 3885 bundles of matches received without payment of appropriate excise duty. Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice demanding duty on 3885 bundles of matches short accounted by appellant and 1194 bundles of safety matches seized on 25-09-2009. Thus, duty amounting to Rs.83,702/- de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in which bundles were cleared on payment of duty 07.08.2009 385 SM/14, dated 07.08.2009 14.08.2009 600 SM/15, dated 14.08.2009 15.08.2009 500 SM/17, dated 22.08.2009 29.08.2009 500 SM/19, dated 29.08.2009 15.09.2009 500 SM/21, dated 15.09.2009 Total 2485 Copies of invoice and extract from the Stock Register submitted No. of bundles under seizure 1194 No. of bundles lying in job worker M/s. Suriyan Match Works as admitted by the department 1415 Total 5094 No. of bundles admitted by the department as accounted 196 9. Further a reconciliation of dipped spl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther argues that the total demand of Rs.83,702/- includes the demand of duty of Rs.19,776/- on seized goods and, therefore, there is excess demand of duty to this extent. 12. It is also argued that owners/driver of Vehicle No. TN 72 C 8677 was not issued with a Show Cause Notice and, therefore, confiscation of the vehicle and redemption fine imposed is not proper and the same may be set aside. The counsel also pleads that the Show Cause Notice did not mention the clause of Rule 25 under which penalty is sought to be imposed and hence penalty under Rule 25 is not sustainable read with Section 11AC of the Act. Further, he points out that the option to pay 25% penalty has not been given. He further points out that already there was a depo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up documents and no credence should be given to those documents. To support his argument he points out that duty payments on clearances as detailed in in paras 8 and 9 above have been made through Cenvat account which is easy to manipulate and there is no payment by cash which could have established their claim. Though payment through Cenvat account is valid payment in the facts of the case it can be seen that these are only manipulated entries. So he prays that the impugned order should be sustained. Further he also points out that for release of the vehicle on provisional basis the appellant executed the bond and now they are submitting that the owner is somebody else and that person has not been put on notice. He submits that this argume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covered by enforcing the bond. However, the redemption fine imposed for redemption of vehicle in on the higher side because this should be linked to duty attempted to be evaded rather than value of the vehicle or the seized goods. Having regard to this fact, I reduce the fine for redeeming the vehicle from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand only). 17. Further I note that there is an argument that the exact clause of Rule 25 is not mentioned in SCN. However Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules is subject to provisions of section 11AC of Central Excise Act. This is to be understood to mean that where section 11AC is applicable provisions of section 11AC will apply and not provisions of Rule 25. This is a case of clandestine removal wh....