WELCURE DRUGS AND Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are arising out of common order in appeal and therefore all are taken up for hearing together for disposal.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellant company are engaged in the manufacture of medicines falling under heading No. 30.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing facility of modvat credit. On 19.5.1998, the Central Excise Officers seized a truck alongwith bulk drug. The Driver could not produce the duty paying documents. However, on verification the bulk drug found to be duty paid. The officers had got photocopies of invoices, which did not tally with the respective invoices kept in the invoice book of the appellant. The said photocopies of invoices are known as parallel invoices. The appellant No. 4 Shri Dharmendra Singh, Stores Executive and Authorised Signatory of the appellant company in his statement dated 19.5.98 accepted that the excisable goods were cleared without payment of duty under the cover of the said parallel invoices under the direction of Shri Sandeep Jain. Shri Vinay Kumar Pandey, Store Keeper of the appellant company in his statement dated 19.5.98 stated that the goods were dispatched against these parallel invoices as per direction of Shri Sandeep Jain. He also identified his handwriting on the said invoices. Shri Sandeep Jain, Director of the appellant company in his statement accepted that the parallel invoices were issued by the company on which no duty was discharged. The appellant company immediately on 19.5.98 debited the duty of Rs. 86,472/ - on the said parallel invoices.

(3.) DURING the course of physical verification, the said officers detected the shortage of inputs involving the duty of Rs. 12,708/ - which has also debited by the appellant company on 19.5.98. On follow -up action, the said officers detected medicines manufactured by the appellant company in two other premises of the appellant company apart from their factory premises and detained under proper panchnama dated 21.5.98. Shri Chander Mohan Khurana, Director of the appellant company in his statement dated 21.5.98 and 26.5.98 accepted that the detained goods were purchased from the sale depot of the appellant company. He also submitted 14 sale bills issued by the appellant company and on verification it was found that part quantity of the detained goods were duty paid and the same were released and duty was demanded on balance quantity. The adjudicating authority confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 89,314/ - alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant company and disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 12,708/ - and confiscated the seized goods imposed redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. Personal penalty was imposed of Rs. 5,000/ - each on the other appellants. The Commissioner (appeals) upheld the adjudicating order.