2018 (12) TMI 1575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd remaining appeals are filed by individuals on whom personal penalties have been imposed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the manufacturer-appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Organic Composite Solvents and Thinners and were classifying the final product under Chapter 38 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were paying Central Excise duty @ 16% Ad-valorem. Through show cause notice dated 07.08.2003 classification claimed by the appellant-manufacturer was disputed by revenue and through the said show cause notice Revenue proposed classification of the goods manufactured by appellants-manufacturer under Sub-heading 271011 attracting 16% BED plus 16% SED total 32% duty Adv. The unit of the appellants-manufacturer was visited by officers of revenue on 26.02.2003. They made certain seizers after conducting stock taking of inputs and final products. The stock taking was done through the method of dip reading. On the basis of said investigation Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 1,10,400/- and Rs. 10,61,000/- was raised and there was proposal for confiscation of 120 Thousand letters of final product OCS-II and 14 Thousand letters of final product OCSP-I. Further, there ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al and Shri Ambrish Kumar. Above stated both show cause notices were adjudicated on contest through the impugned Order-in-Original. The manufacturer-appellants submitted before the Original Authority that entire duty on two invoice books had been paid along with interest and the delay in payment was due to facility of forthnightly payment and that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 38 and attracted 16% rate of duty and contended that Tribunal had already held that unless the final product with any other product is proved to be used as fuel in spark engine, it cannot be classified under Chapter 27. They further submitted that the entire stock taking was done in a defective manner and recorded huge shortage which was in fact not there. They further submitted that stock taking was done by dip method which was not accurate method and therefore, they denied shortages in raw materials and finished goods. Further, in respect of proposal for confiscation of goods and vehicles they submitted that duty was already deposited and therefore, the question of confiscation does not arise. In respect of the show cause notice dated 13.02.2007 they submitted before the Original authority that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was held to be under Chapter heading 2710.11 during the relevant period i.e. during 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. (ii) Demand of Rs. 3,79,67,279/- was confirmed against M/s Amkap Marketing Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11A(1) along with interest under Section 11AB. (iii) Demand of Rs. 10,61,000/- was confirmed against M/s Amkap Marketing Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11A(1) along with interest under Section 11AB. Amount of Rs. 5,30,500/- deposited against the said liability was ordered to be appropriated. (iv) Demand of Rs. 7,00,428/- was confirmed against M/s Amkap Marketing Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11A(1) along with interest under Section 11AB. (v) Demands of Rs. 1,10,400/- and Rs. 10,84,320/- were dropped. (vi) Seized goods i.e. OCS-II and OCS P-I totally valued at Rs. 3,45,000/- were confiscated and in lieu of redemption fine, Rs. 86,250/- was ordered to be appropriated by encashment of Bank Guarantee no.63/03 dated 12.03.2003 submitted as security at the time of provisional release. (vii) Seized Tanker No.UP 14-E-2368 valued at Rs. 7,00,000/- was confiscated and in lieu of redemption fine, Rs. 7,00,000/- was ordered to be appropriated by encashment of Bank Guarantee No.6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he has relied on the Final Order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II reported at 2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri.-Ahmd.). He has further submitted that this Tribunal in the said Final Order in para-40 has very clearly laid down certain fundamental criteria which have to be established by revenue for proving allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance. He has submitted that revenue did not fulfill any of the criteria stated therein. He has therefore pleaded for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Heard the learned A.R. for revenue. He has submitted that inquiries conducted at the premises of purchasers of trading transactions revealed that such traders did not exists and therefore, the contention of the appellant that the figures reflected in sales general were in respect of traded goods and not manufactured goods is not established and therefore, he has supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered the submissions made from both the sides and on perusal of record, we not that the appellant had raised various points, as recorded hereinabove before the Original Authority and we do not find any evidence....