TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating authority has been upheld. Under OIO dated 31.12.2007, Adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,55,368/- against the main appellant M/s. Span Intermediates Pvt. Limited, Vapi, along with section 11AB interest and also imposed equivalent penalty upon the main appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 173Q (1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon Shri Krishnadev S. Choubey, Technical Director-cum-Authorised Signatory of the main appellant, under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Shri K.I. Vyas, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the main appellant is the manufacturer of Synthetic Organic Dyes (S.O.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;s specification and the figures reflected in the said notebook can not be compared with the figures entered in RG-1 register and can not be taken as a basis for allegation of illicit removal. Appellants also contended that weightage can not be given to the depositions made by their Technical Director in his statement. He further contended that blender notebook is their internal record for movement of semi-finished goods for other processes and the same can not be considered as the base for entries in RG-1 register. Appellants also argued that no cross-examination of the investigating authority was permitted to prove their side. They contended that demand can not be confirmed and penalty can not be imposed on the basis of recorded statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finished goods and were required to be entered in the RG-1 register. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is whether the main appellant has indulged in clandestine clearance of the S.O. Dyes mentioned in the Blender Register which were not recorded in the RG-1 register. It is the case of the appellant that all goods mentioned in the Blender register do not became ripe for clearances till the blended dye sample is approved by the customer. That in case of non approval the batch prepared is not cleared. It is also the case of the appellant that a new batch is prepared as per the desired quality of the customer either by improving the earlier batch or otherwise and earlier entry made in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds found in HDPE bags were only tied but not packed and sealed as done for fully finished marketable goods. The Commissioner in the impugned order relying upon Tribunal decision in the case of D.S. Screen v. Collector 1990 (56) E.L.T. 475 has held goods are to be entered in RG 1 even before testing. But we feel that in the context of the Tariff Structure relating to S.O. Dyes, as noted above, the relevance of standardisation vis-a-vis accountal in RG 1 is also to be looked into. Therefore we are of the view that so far as the S.O. Dyes packed in bags are concerned it will be reasonable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants, and in this view of the matter the confiscation of the qu....