TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in possession of valid Central Excise licence etc. 2. Heard Shri T. Ramesh, ld. Advocate for the appellants who submits that appellants were manufacturing branded cheroots of two sizes. The smaller sizes had been declared as valued at Rs. 3.40 paise per 100 and the bigger size at Rs. 4.80 paise as far back as 1978. The same prices were reiterated in 1988. Therefore, these qualify for the total exemption from duty under Notification No. 167/78. 3. He submits that the issue arose after the visit of Central Excise officers on 24-1-1986 who found that in the RG 1 register, clearances of cheroots of 39,120 pieces of bigger size and 21,500 pcs.of smaller sizes had not been entered leading to non-accountal of specified number of cheroots. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corded, therefore, there was no evidence led to corroborate with respect to other 24 buyers. Sixthly, he submits that even if it is held that duty is payable, the computation of duty needs to be relooked into in terms of provision of Section 4(4)(d)(iii)as the alleged value of these goods would be cum duty price. He submits that if this is taken into consideration the demand would be reduced to Rs. 4,42,605/-. In this connection, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd as in 1999 (108) E.L.T 361 (T) (Larger Bench). 3. He also cites the following decisions :- (a) Corona Cosmetics & Chemicals (P) Ltd. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 118 (T) wherein it was held that the production cannot be accurately determ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where the case was also tried. This conclusion of Court of Law may not be overlooked merely because the statements were later retracted. He also submits that the appellants have not been able to give any convincing reply to the position found in the order impugned as to how could the declared price be static for 10 years i.e. from 1978 to 1988 particularly in view of the clear admission in the statement of one of the appellants that they had resorted to selling at higher rates clandestinely in view of the increase in price of raw materials as well as the labour. He also emphasizes that there is no defence from the appellants as to why they had shifted the place of manufacture without intimation to the department. In view of this, he submits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty has correctly accepted the same as being bound by the said decision and has relied upon them as against the retractions made later. We do not find any infirmity in this conclusion reached by the original authority. (b) The appellants have not been able to give any credible explanation of the findings by the original authority in para-9 of the order impugned that despite an average inflation of about 10% per annum, it is not understood as to how the price declared by the appellants of these cheroots remained same over a period of 10 years . We also find that in the statement dated 24-1-1986, the appellant Shri Maruthamuthu has clearly deposed that he was compelled to sell the branded cheroots manufactured in his factory to the differen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th RG 1 register, our findings are that since the entire exercise of clandestine manufacture was run on a parallel basis to the statutory accounts, therefore it is not surprising that the quantities of tobacco reflected in EB6 account have matched that of the RG 1 register. It is common knowledge that when an unscrupulous assessee resorted to clandestine removal, he may not reflect the raw materials used in goods manufactured clandestinely in the statutory accounts also. Therefore, merely because the EB6 register does not show excess or extra purchase of raw materials, that by itself cannot be held to be overriding the rest of the evidences relied upon by the original authority. (e) With respect to the submission that this register also ....