PARSHURAM CEMENT LTD., SHRI Vs. CCE, LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common order in original dated 28.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner vide which he had confirmed duty demand of Rs.33,27,909.20 alongwith penalty of equal amount under Section 11 -AC and of Rs.2 lakhs under Rule 173 -Q of the Central Excise Rules, on appellant no.1 and imposed penalty of Rs.1 lakh each on other two appellants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under:

(3.) Appellant no.1 company was engaged in the manufacture of ordinary portland cement while appellants nos.2 and 3 were working at the relevant time as its managing Director and General Manager respectively. On 8.12.95 the factory premises of the company were visited by the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Division, Aligarh and one Shri D. Gupta who introduced himself as production incharge was present. On conducting search of the store -room empty bag register containing entries for the period 1.4.95 to 22.7.95 and note -book (marked as store) carrying entries for the period 4.12.95 to 7.12.95 were recovered. These documents were resumed and on scrutiny of the entries made therein vis -a -vis their comparison with the RG.1, it revealed that the figures recorded in the assumed documents did not tally with the figure of production and clearances mentioned in the RG.1. It appeared that only part of production was being recorded by the appellants in the Rg.1 while the rest was being regularly suppressed with intent to evade the duty. The statement of Shri B.K.Sood (appellant no.3) who was working as General Manager at that time, was also recorded on 11.12.95 regarding the recovery of the seized documents. The statement of Subhash, Store Keeper was also recorded on 15.1.96. On completion of the enquiry, show cause notice dated 13.8.98 was served on all the appellants vide which duty demand of Rs.33,27,909.20 was raised and penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them. The appellants contested the correctness of the show cause notice by denying that the recovered documents belonged to them. They also requested for cross -examination of the witnesses whose statements were recorded at their back during investigation. They denied evasion of the duty by resorting to clandestine production and removal of the goods. The imposition of penalty under Section 11 -AC was also disputed by them on the ground that the alleged evasion of duty pertained to the period to 28.9.96, the date on which the said section was introduced in the Act. They also avered that the demand was time barred and extended period of limitation could not be invoked as they had been filing RT.12 Returns every month regularly and that their records were also regularly audited and no objection at any time raised by the Excise Department.