2002 (2) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e process of machining of roughly forged articles at the job workers' premises during the period 1-4-97 to 12-1-98 had not been returned to the appellants' factory nor cleared on payment of duty in terms of Rule 57F(5). The quantity of scrap so generated was worked out at 243.888 MTs valued at Rs. 9,99,940.80 involving duty of Excise of Rs. 1,49,991.12. This amount of duty has already been deposited by the party in two instalments, on 16-1-98 and 19-1-98. The department, however, framed a case for imposing penalty on the party and accordingly issued a show cause notice to them. This was contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the party ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lving Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,49,991.12 has been cleared by them or their job worker without payment of leviable Central Excise duty at the time & place of removal, in the manner prescribed for this purpose, without the cover of valid invoice and without accounting for the same in their statutory record of Central Excise. Thus, the party has suppressed the facts from the department with intend to evade payment of Central Excise duty". Obviously, the above allegation has been raised with reference to sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 57F as this Rule stood during the material period. Sub-rule (4) provided that any input, as such or partially processed, could be sent by the manufacturer of final product to any job worker under cover of a ....