CCE Vs. DHANRAJ ORGANICS LTD. AND SHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order is no farthe Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for duty of Rs. 1,12,115/ - (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand One Hundred Fifteen only) and reduced penalty from Rs. 1,56,010/ - (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand and Ten only) to Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand only) upon respondent No. 1 and also set aside penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) imposed upon Shri Abhay Agrawal, respondent No. 2, Director of the Company. The respondent No. 1 filed the Cross Objection against the impugned order, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty of Rs. 8340.00, imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 6000.00 and penalty of Rs. 5000.00.

(2.) HEARD the learned DR on behalf of the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. It appears from record that on 27.12.06 the respondents requested for adjournment as the learned advocate was unwell and adjourned to 10.1.07. But, on 10.1.07 none appeared on behalf of respondent and the matter was adjourned to 22.1.07 (weekly list) and notice was issued to the respondents. So, the appeal is taken up for hearing in their absence.

(3.) THE relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the respondent No. 1 M/s Dhanraj Organics Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Di -Octyl Phthalate (DOP), Di -Butyl Phthalate (DBP) falling under Chapter No. 2917.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 12th August 1998, the Preventive Officer of the Central Excise visited the factory of the respondent No. 1. The said officers conducted stock verification of finished goods and found shortage of DBP and excess stock of DOP, which were seized by them. During the course of visit, the officers recovered a fax message dated 10th June 1998 addressed to M/s Gupta Chemicals, Delhi indicating that 10500 Kgs. of DBP had been dispatched to M/s Gupta Chemicals vide invoice No. 1 dated 10th June 1998 through M/s Jaipur Golden Transport. It appears that no Central Excise invoice was prepared and no duty had been paid in respect of the said goods. Respondent No. 2 Shri Abhay Agarwal, Director of respondent No. 1 in his statement before the officers stated that the duty had been paid on the said goods vide four invoices issued on that date. He also stated that the said invoices were issued in the name of local parties and not in the name of M/s Gupta Chemicals. The excise officers visited the premises of M/s Jaipur Golden Transport who confirmed the transportation of the said goods to M/s Gupta Chemicals from the factory of the respondent No. 1. The said officers further visited the premises of M/s Gupta Chemicals on 21st August 1998. During the course of search, 18 drums of DBP in 5250 Kgs. were found, which were received without any bills/invoice. Shri Bharat Bhushan of M/s Gupta Chemicals in his statement dated 30th November 1998 stated that Shri Abhay Agarwal respondent No. 2 herein took the order from him and it was agreed that he would dispatch the consignment and after its receipt, the papers accompanying the goods would be destroyed. He also stated that under the impression of receiving the goods at lower cost they had agreed with the method suggested by the respondent No. 2. Shri Abhay Agarwal. Further, respondent No. 2, in his statement before the Central Excise Officers stated that they issued seven invoices in the name of different parties in Indore and Khandwa. But they have not delivered the goods to these seven parties. However, they had recovered the payment against these invoices by way of pay orders. The contention of the respondent No. 1 that the goods were delivered to M/s Gupta Chemicals and invoices were issued in the name of other consignees.