JAGDISH GLASS WORKS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware. The final product of the appellants such as lamp shades and glass tumblers were liable to excise duty whereas the chimneys and laboratory -ware were exempted from payment of duty. On 26.11.1992, officers of the excise department visited the factory of the appellants and seized the private record from the possession of one Shri Sunil Agarwal, partner of the appellant firm. The scrutiny of the private record shows that the appellants had cleared various items of glass and glassware, which were liable to central excise duty to different customers. But, in the statutory record, neither there was any entry for such removals or these goods were removed under guise of exempted goods. After issuance of show cause notice, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. Appellants filed the appeal before the CEGAT and vide final Order Nos. A/709 -10/2000 NB dated 21.8.2000 the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. The present impugned order is passed in pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) The contention of the appellants is that the alleged private record, recovered from the factory, does not relate to them. The record was placed by somebody in their office. There was no evidence on record to show that the seized private record was written by the employees of the appellants, as no investigation was conducted in respect of the author of the seized record. Therefore, the entries made in this record cannot be made basis for confirming the demand. The contention of the appellants is also that the entries made in the private record do hot show the description of the goods nor the value of the goods. Therefore, no duty can be quantified on the basis of entries made in the private record. The statements made by Shri V.K. Pachori, excise clerk and other persons were retracted by them therefore, the statements cannot be relied upon. Appellants also contended that the lamp shades are the chimneys, which are exempted from payment of duty.