FAVOURITE INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing both the sides for considerable time, we find that the appellant was a 100% EOU engaged in the processing of fabrics. As they were found involved in evasion case of duties of around Rs. 2.49 crores in respect of fraudulent export to Bangladesh, their licence was suspended by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise on 16 -4 -2002. On the date of suspension the duty free imported raw material was laying in the appellants factory, the same were seized and given in Supardagi to the appellant for safe custody.

(2.) ON a subsequent visit to the factory premises on 10 -2 -2005, it was found that either the goods were stolen or were replaced. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against them for confirmation of demand, which resulted in impugned order having been passed by the Commissioner confirming duty of Rs. 33,00,360/ - along with imposition of identical penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. In addition penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs stands imposed upon the other appellant, partner of the manufacturing unit.

(3.) IT is also the appellants case that the goods were stolen or replaced by unknown people and they have filed a FIR to that effect with the Police on 16 -2 -2005. However, on being queried, ld. Advocate fairly admits that the keys of the lock of the godown were with them and the lock was not found to be tampered with on the date of visit of the officers. However, he submits that such shortages were detected by themselves only on 1 -2 -2005 and intimated to the Superintendent, Central Excise. However, on being asked ld. Advocate has not been able to place on record any documentary evidence to show that the intimation about the shortages was from their side. However, he has drawn our attention to the FIR with the Police filed on 16 -2 -2005 communicating that such shortages were detected by them and intimated to the Revenue on 1 -2 -2005.