CHANDRU ELECTRICALS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSPITE of notices sent twice to the appellant. None has appeared.

(2.) THIS is an application for waiver of payment of duty of Rs. 6,11,917/ - and the fine of Rs. 25,000/ -. The charge against the appellant was that he has filed the monthly returns as required under Rule 173 G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the appeal that there is no other evidence in the case disclosed by the department apart from the statement of the appellant in the said paragraph 13 the appellant also states that the firm had worked for 364 days during January 1996 to February, 1997 and 282 days from March 1997 to January 1998 and that firm could manufacture only 200 chokes a day and the cost of the chokes is taken at Rs. 42/ - per piece. He challenges demand of duty on this basis.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions and are of the view in a prima facie way that when there is an admission of the proprietor himself, which has not been retracted later the demand of duty is justified. The application for waiver even though states that the balance sheet is enclosed the same is not enclosed. We therefore direct the appellant to pay 50% of the demand namely Rs. 3 lakhs and the penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - within 12 weeks from the receipt of this order. On such payment being made there will be waiver of the remaining sum of duty and penalty and stay the recovery thereof. In case of failure to do so the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Post this case in September 2001 for compliance. (Pronounced in Court)