PRESTIGE PLASTICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the sides.

(2.) ON the basis of documents seized and the statements recorded, it was alleged that the appellant, M/s. Prestige Plastics Ltd., a manufacturer of Plastic Pipes, removed the said goods without payment of Central Excise duty. Such removals appeared to have been made during the period January 99 to September 99, the total duty said to have been evaded was Rs. 3,67,257/ -. The appellant does not contest the finding of the Commissioner that duty is payable on the removals from April 99 - Sept. 99. What is in dispute, however, is the duty demanded on the goods alleged to have been removed prior to April 99, i.e. January to March 99.

(3.) THE learned Advocate argued that the lower authorities confirmed an amount of Rs. 1,65,689/ - towards duty not levied, on the Plastic Pipes without any basis. He argued that the diary seized from the premises of the appellant did not give any quantity of pipes removed without payment of duty prior to April 99. He submitted that the show cause notice relied upon the diary to determine the duty evaded during this period. Any calculations based on the entries made in the diary are at best surmises. He further stated that the worksheet showing the calculations of duty was never given to the appellants. It is also his contention that duty was demanded without giving permissible deductions on the amounts alleged to have been received by the appellants against clandestine sales. The price at which goods are sold are cum -duty prices and therefore proper deductions should have been given while arriving at the assessable value.