2007 (6) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....violation of Principles 9 Natural Justice. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has demanded an amount of duty of Rs. 81,48,576/-on the value of the alleged clearances of Socks without payment of duty under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Equal penalty under Section 11AC has been imposed. A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed on Shri Prabhat Kumar Sethia, Managing Director, under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Interest under section 11AB has been demanded. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order. Hence, they have come before this Tribunal, for relief. 3. Shri G. Shiva Dass, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Sri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....c Granites v. CCE - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 421. (v) The presumption of removal that would arise on account of a statutory stock taking under Rule 233A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 would not apply in this case. (vi) It was further urged that in respect of the goods cleared into the DTA without any permission from the Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Revenue has demanded duty in terms of proviso to section 3 of the Central Excise Act. But, during the relevant period, when the goods were cleared into DTA without permission from the Development Commissioner, such clearances would fall under the category of "Goods not allowed to be sold in India" and consequently, the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act would not apply to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor of the unit under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. 6.1 With regard to the shortage, the Commissioner has stated in his findings that the shortage of 25,315 dozen pairs of socks was not refuted by the assessee at any point of time. This, actually on the face of it, is incorrect, as the Commissioner himself has recorded that on 12-4-2002, the appellants had informed the department that during stock verification, only one godown was verified and there was finished goods stock in another godown also. Having stated this, we do not understand how the Commissioner gives a finding that the shortage was never disputed by the appellants. This actually shows non-application of mind. The appellants have stated that 14000 dozens of socks w....