TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has arrived at a finding that a part of the said clandestine removal of ingots was received by second appellant M/s. Dodani Steel Inds. who have utilized the same for manufacture of their final product i.e. CTD Bars and have removed the same clandestinely during the period 1-3-90 to 29-9-90. Accordingly, duty of Rs. 74,399.85 has been confirmed against the said appellant along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, ld. Advocate appearing for the first appellant M/s. Rajesh Casting Pvt. Ltd. submits that the matter was taken up by them before the designated authority in terms of provisions of KVSS and as such the appeal filed before the Tribunal is deemed to have been withdrawn. He submits that, even th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loaded with the material are weighed at Weighbridge and the difference is again recorded, as the quantity received in the receipt register. The appellant has drawn the attention of the adjudicating authority to some of the entries where the weight recorded in the receipt register is less than the weight recorded in the dispatch document. As such, he submits that difference in the receipt register cannot be made the basis for arriving at a finding against them that they were receiving ingots and utilizing the same in the manufacture of CTD Bars and clearing them clandestinely. He also submits that receipt register reflects the total weight and some of the trucks, apart from carrying ingots, may also be carrying other materials. As regards t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri Hitesh Shah, ld. SDR for the Revenue submits that the entries made in the receipt register, showing receipt of excess weight of ingots than what is reflected in the duty paying documents, has been admitted by the partner of the appellant. He further submits that the payment for excess receipt of input was being made by cash, whereas the balance amount was being made by cheque. This fact is sufficient enough to hold against the appellant, that they were utilizing the excess quantity of ingots received in the manufacture of their final product, which, in turn, was being cleared to their customers without payment of duty. As regards the claim to the exemption Notification No. 202/88, it has been submitt....