Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2320

Whether clandestine charge leviable on basis of excess clearances shown in security register?.

Case:-  COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD VERSUS JYOTI WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD.
 
Citation:- 2014 (300) E.L.T. 477 (Tri. - Mumbai)
  

Brief facts:-Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the manufacturer of enameled winding wires made of copper and PVC insulated copper wires. On 7-12-1996, the factory premises of the appellant was searched. During the course of search, a register maintained by the Security Officer of the respondent was taken over and the same was compared with the other records wherein the Security officer makes the entry of the removal of the goods date-wise. The quantity mentioned in the security register were not tallied with the invoices of the said dates. On perusal of the records, it was found that there were some excess clearances shown in the security register on 24-4-1996 and 22-6-1996. It was also found that some of the rejected goods received by the respondent were also lying in the factory beyond the period of six months. Further, it was also found that numbers of gunny bags of waste and scrap which were short at the time of inspection as compared to the packing showing the higher number of bags. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 3-2-1999 was issued. The show cause notice was adjudicated and on the basis of allegation made in the show cause notice, demand of Central Excise duty along with interest was confirmed against the respondent and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was also imposed. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the adjudication order. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is in appeal.
 
Appellant’s contentions:-Shri V.R. Kulkarni, Dy. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue submitted that at the time of investigation on 7-12-1996, the Security Officer was enquired and he made a statement and produced a register meant for clearance of the goods. In the statement, it is an admitted fact that the quantities shown in the Security Officer’s register are more in quantity than shown in the invoices made on that date. The said fact has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside on that ground. He further submitted that it is evident that waste and scrap are of less quantity of gunny bags at the time of investigation. Therefore, the differential quantity had been cleared without payment of duty. On these grounds the impugned order is required to be set aside.
 
 
Respondent’s contentions:- Shri Vinay Sejpal, learned Advocate appearing for respondent strongly opposes the contention of the learned A.R. and submitted that although the Security Officer has admitted the difference between the quantity mentioned in the invoices and the quantity recorded in his register but Shri Omprakash Rathi, Asst. Manager has replied to a query raised to him that the differences in the quantity shall be explained through documentary evidence later on. Thereafter during the course of investigation, it was explained by Shri Omprakash Rathi that there are some difference in the quantity of invoices and the Security Officer’s entry record in the register. The explanation has not been considered by the adjudicating authority but on appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the explanation in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order. He further submitted that the allegation that the rejected goods have been replaced by the finished goods has not taken place as the same has been alleged on the ground that the rejected goods have not been replaced within six months. The rejected goods have been entered in the Annexure 5 of Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944. With regard to the shortage of waste and scrap it is submitted that the waste and scrap were packed in gunny bags and there was variation in number of gunny bags were found at the time of inspection. With regard to the shortage of waste and scrap it is explained that during the course of loading/unloading of the waste and scrap which is packed in gunny bags some of the gunny bags were torn off which were replaced in other gunny bags. Therefore there is a difference in number of gunny bags but the quantity of waste and scrap remain the same. Therefore, the allegation of shortage of waste and scrap is not sustainable.
In view of the above submissions the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order be upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue be rejected.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- It is a case where the allegation is clandestine removal of the goods on the basis of clearance register maintained by the Security Officer and the statement of Security Officer at the time of investigation. During the course of investigation, itself it has been explained to the departmental officers that there is no shortage of goods and no clandestine removal of the goods and the same were supported by various documents produced by the respondent before the investigating authority. It is also explained by the respondent that although the Security officer has maintained a register of clearance but it is a internal stock register of the goods. The goods were cleared finally from the factory gate on the basis of the gate pass and the clearance shown in gate pass are tallied with the invoices. As the respondent maintain two security checks the final security check deals with the clearance which are tallied with the actual clearance in the respondent stock register which tallies with each other and no evidence has been produced by the Revenue that these documents are not correct. Therefore, the allegation of clandestine removal is not sustainable. As recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order which is reproduced hereinunder :-
“8.I find that apart from the entries in the Security Loading Register on two specific dates there has been no other independent corroborative evidence which shows that the so called excess quantity of goods had been actually removed from the appellants’ factory. The stock taking of the finished goods as well as raw material undertaken by the visiting preventive officers did not point out any variations in the stock physically available in the appellants’ factory viz-a-viz their statutory records. Had there been excess removal of 71 boxes plus 14 reels against the dispatches made on 24-4-1996 and similarly excess removal of 28 boxes in respect of consignment dispatched on 22-6-1996, the stock position ought to have shown shortage of goods to that extent. The absence of shortage in the stocks suggests that only that quantity of goods as mentioned in the Central Excise Invoices duly matching with Gate Slips and finished goods outward register were removed from the appellants’ factory on those dates. Therefore, the charge of clandestine removal of goods is not found substantiated.
9.So far as the discrepancy in the number of vehicle shown as MH-12G-5523 in Invoice No. 48, 49 and 50 in place of MWQ-5823 is concerned, I find that the fourth invoice No. 51 dated 24-4-1996 bears vehicle No. MWQ-5823 which tallies with the Gate Slip as well as finished goods outward register. Not only this but the quantity shown in all the four C. Ex. Invoices do tally with the quantity reflected in the gate slip and the outward register. It appears that at time of preparation of Invoice No. 48, 49 and 50 dated 24-4-1996 the appellants might have booked the vehicle No. MH-12G-5523 but at the time of actual loading of the goods vehicle No. MWQ-5823 might have come and which ultimately transported the said goods covered under all the four invoices. Hence this discrepancy loses its significance.”
With regard to the allegation of replacement of the rejected goods with the finished goods, same has been recorded in an Annexure 5 as per Rule 173H ibid and the said fact has not been controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, the allegation of replacement of rejected goods, when no query from the buyers has been made whether they have received finished goods against the rejected goods or not, the allegation that the rejected goods have been replaced by finished goods is not sustainable.
With regard to the differences in the waste and scrap it is clarified and found that quantity of waste and scrap is tallying with each other and the only difference is no. of gunny bags, therefore, the allegation is not sustainable as the duty is to be demanded on the basis of quantity of clearance and not on the basis of packets. Therefore, the said allegation against the respondent is not sustainable.
All these things have been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in detail and it was held that the allegations made against the respondent in the show cause notice are not sustainable. After going through the explanation recorded in the impugned order, Tribunal was also of the view that the allegations alleged against the respondent in the show cause notice are not sustainable. In this term, the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. Cross-objection is also disposed of in the above term.
 
 
Decision:- The appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The analogy of the case is that merely because of difference in the quantity of clearances shown in the security register and the invoices, it cannot be concluded that the there was clandestine removal of goods. Moreover, there was no shortage of inputs which proved that there was no clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods.
 
Prepared by: Monika Tak

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com