TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y under Rule 209A of the C.E. Rules. 2. The facts of the case are the appellants are manufacturers of printing ink classifiable under Chapter heading 32.15 of CET and were utilizing the printing ink captively in the printing of posters/pictures. They were also eligible for SSI exemption from 9/94 as per Notification No. 125/94 and they were availing Modvat facility. 3. The officers visited their unit on 20-11-95 and seized 3 note books. (i) Note book showing the production of printing ink pertaining to the period 1-4-93 to 15-6-94. (ii) Note book showing the production of printing ink relating to the period 2-5-94 to 14-8-95. (iii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 and for SSI benefit in terms of notification. They contend that the duty for clearance in note book 1 could not be more than Rs. 40,000 and it requires to be re-worked out. It is their further contention that there is no evidence produced by the revenue with regard to the purchase of the inputs manufactured and clearance of the final product as noted in note book Nos. 2 & 3 which does not belong to them. Shri I. Gurusamy was elderly person who was not managing the factory but it was his son who was doing the work. He was present in the factory on that day and he was not aware of the details admitted by him in the note books seized but did accept the entries. Shri I. Gurusamy was cross-examined and has clearly stated that the details ente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCE, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 655 (iii) Gurpreet Rubber Industries v. CCE, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 347 (iv) CCE v. Mira Silk Mills, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 934 (v) Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (32) RLT 845 (vi) Sharma Chemicals v. CCE, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 271 6. Ld. Counsel submits that the penalty is also not in commensurate with the duty liability. He also contended that Shri I. Gurusamy was not personally involved in the day to day affairs and had not directed his son to indulge in clandestine removal and therefore penalty under Rule 209A was not justified. 7. Ld. DR reiterated the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich cannot be correlated to the goods manufactured and cleared. On this aspect they have also stated that details in note book Nos. 2 & 3 are totally irrelevant with the type of manufacture of goods cleared by them in their factory and with relation to the entries made in note book No. 1 which is in Tamil. The person who was maintaining the records knew only Tamil and he has not admitted the contents of note book Nos. 2 & 3. Further in the light of settled law the demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of the entries made in note book Nos. 2 & 3 as has been laid down in the judgments referred to before us. In order to confirm demands on clandestine removal the Revenue has to produce corroborative evidence in the form of receipt of raw mat....