Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. II

APPEAL No.E/1361/10, E/1528 & 1529/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.Belapur/25/Taloja/R-1/Commr/SLM/2009-10 dated 31/03/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================

Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Haresh Dharmani Appellant

Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Belapur

Appearance:

Shri.H.G.Dharmadhikari, Advocate With Shri Bhalerao, Advocate for appellant Shri.Ajay Kumar, Jt. Comm. (AR) for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr.Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 24/09/2015 Date of Decision : /2015

ORDER NO

Per: Raju

1. M/s.Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd. are manufactures of MS drums. The revenue intercepted a truck carrying MS drums belonging to the appellant. On the suspicion that the same has been cleared without payment of duty, the drums as well as the vehicle were seized. The factory premises of the unit were searched and thereafter there was a follow up search in the head office of the appellant. During search certain documents were seized and stock of the Finished goods and raw materials was also taken. Thereafter statements of the Director of the company and three employees were recorded. After scrutiny of documents seized, statements recorded and documents submitted, a notice was issued to them alleging clandestine removal of goods and wrong availment of Cenvat credit. The allegations were based on mismatch between the actual stock of finished goods as well as raw materials compared to the stock declared in the statutory records. Allegations were also based on entry made in duplicate RG-1 register and duplicate invoice book.

1.1 The first charge in the notice was based on the stocks of the finished goods counted on the day of search and the data in the register withdrawn from the factory premises pertaining to the period 01/12/200 to 25/02/2006. It was alleged that the stocks and clearances as shown in private register did not match those shown in the statutory records. The clearances shown in the said production register did not match the corresponding clearances made on statutory records after payment of duty under Central Excise invoices. It was also alleged that the said clearances were not reflected in the RG-1 register on the respective dates. Statement of Shri M Subramanian Ayer, who had prepared the register was recorded on 03/04/2006, he stated that since he had joined the company only from December 2005 it was maintained on that date only. It is a record of daily activities like production, clearance, attendance etc. That the entries in the said register taken in respect of production from the shop floor and dispatch from the gate watchman. He further stated that he did not prepare challans or invoice.

That the total production during 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006 was 18,121 barrels and the clearance was 15982 barrels. Statements of Shri Harish Dharmani, Director of the assessee was recorded. He confirmed the facts stated in the statement of Shri Subramanian Iyer. He was shown the chart, namely Annexure A, showing the details of manufacture and clearance and consequential shortages of finished goods and he agreed to pay duty in respect of the same. He stated that some clearances shown in the private records were covered by the invoices issued by them on different dates. He further stated that certain clearances had shown in the Annexure 1 to 3 was made by them without invoice and without payment of duty. He confirmed that as per said annexure there was shortage of 7063 MS drums. Statement of the transporters, viz., MP Cargo Movers and M/s.Padma Travels were also recorded. It was alleged that from verification from the Padma Travels and its comparison with the private records of the assessee it appeared that they had not prepared any invoice for the clearances mentioned in the private records.

On the basis of the above evidence, it was alleged that the appellant had clandestinely removed 7063 MS drums without accounting in the daily stock account and not discharged the Central Excise duty. The total value of the said drums was calculated as Rs.63,56,700/- and the duty of Rs.10,37,413/- was demanded.

1.2 The second charge in the notice was based on the scrutiny of the raw material register (RG-23APart-I) for the period April 2002 to February 2006. It was alleged that the appellant should have a stock of 489.458 MTs of raw materials, i.e. CR Sheets and CR coils in their factory premises on 25/02/2006. However, on the stock verification only 27.580 MT (approx.) was physically found. On the basis of above evidence it was calculated that there was a shortage of 461.8 MTs of raw materials. Duty of Rs.16,58,327/- was demanded as the appellant had failed to explain the reasons for the said shortage of raw materials dispatched.

1.3 The third charge was that the appellants were taking Cenvat credit on the basis of duplicate for transporter copy of invoice under the pretext that the goods were rejected and returned as such by the consignee i.e. IOCL and HPCL. On enquiry from the said consignees it was found that the goods were not rejected by them and they had in fact availed Cenvat credit in respect of those invoices. It was also found that duplicate for transporter copy of the said invoice receipt from the consignee did not match the corresponding invoice on which the appellants have availed the re-credit. On the basis of above evidence and the statement of certain employees, a demand for recovery of Cenvat credit wrongly availed amounting to Rs.2,25,876/- was issued to the appellant. The charge was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and is not contested by Maldar Barrels Pvt Ltd.

1.4 The fourth charge was based on the investigation with one of the customers, viz., TA Corporation. It was found that they had placed only one purchase order on 07/10/2005 and the appellant had supplied 65 barrels vide invoice No.000215 dated 18/10/2005. However, on verification of the triplicate copy of the invoice from the appellants records it was found that the invoice No.000215 was issued by them on 05/12/2005 and not on 18/10/2005. The invoice purportedly issued to the TA Corporation on 18/10/2005 was not reflected in the ER-1 return for the month of October 2005. On the basis of above evidence, it was alleged that the appellant was maintaining parallel invoices. On the basis of the above evidence duty amounting to Rs.7,956/- was demanded. The charge was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and is not contested by Maldar Barrels Pvt Ltd.

1.5 The fifth charge was that on scrutiny of documents seized, and voluntarily submitted by Maldar Barrels Pvt Ltd, revealed existence of two sets of RG-1 register one for the period 01/04/2004 to February 2006 (reflected in ER-1 return filed by the assessee) and another parallel one for the period 01/05/2005 to 26/02/2006. Later one was submitted by the appellant voluntarily under their letter dated 26/04/2006. In addition to above register, the appellant had also submitted an invoice book for the month of September 2005 which was not reflected in the statutory clearances. Shri Harish Dharmani was asked to explain the existence of two sets of RG-1 and invoice book. Shri Dharmani stated that the same were prepared by Shri Samir Safi Ansari, Excise Assistant and he was not aware under whose instructions, the same were prepared. It was alleged in the notice that some of the content of parallel invoice book matched with content of the parallel RG-1 register. A statement of Shri Ansari, Excise Assistant was recorded on 19/12/2007 wherein he stated that duplicate invoice book was prepared by him and Shri Khan, Clerk cum supervisor, as per the direction of Shri Harish Dharmani and all the details required were given by Shri Harish Dharmani. The said statement of Shri Ansari was also confirmed by Shri Khan. He further stated that in respect of invoice mentioned in the said RG-1 register only Shri Harish Dharmani can through some light as the same was not prepared by him. On the basis of above evidence, it was alleged that the goods valued at Rs.9,39,45,925/- were cleared without payment of duty and duty amounting to Rs.1,53,33,168/- was demanded.

1.6 It was alleged that on the basis of affirmative statement of Shri Ansari, Iyer and Khan, and deliberate and evasive/elusive nature of statements of Shri Harish Dharmani pointed towards delaying tactics adopted by the assessee. It was alleged that there was non-corporation on the part of Shri Harish Dharmani. He had to be arrested and produced before the Honble Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, who granted him bail with condition to appear before the investigating officer daily for two hours for thirty days. It was alleged that Shri Dharmani was the decision making person in all activities of the company like procurement of raw materials, production, maintenance of records, clearances either directly or by way of passing instructions to his employees. It was alleged that the records were not maintained properly and the entries were incomplete. It was alleged that this was done deliberately with an intention to clear raw-materials/finished goods clandestinely without payment of duty. Further it was alleged that on his direction parallel invoices were generated to avail inadmissible credit without actual rejection by the consignees. On the basis of above penalty was sought to be imposed on the Director and the three employees of the factory.

2. The Commissioner confirmed all the demands except the demand of Rs.16,58,327/- in respect of the shortage of 461.878 MTs of raw materials. He, however, dropped the penalties against the three employees on the ground that they were merely following directions of the Director. M/s.Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd. and its director Shri Harish Dharmani are in appeal against confirmation of demand of Rs.10,37,413/- in respect of alleged shortage of 7063 MS drums found on 25/02/2006. They are also in appeal against the demands of Rs.1,53,33,168/- in respect of drums alleged to have been cleared as per the parallel RG-1 register and invoice book submitted by M/s.Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd. No appeal has however been filed in respect of confirmation of demand of Rs.2,25,876/- in respect of wrong availment of credit taken on goods returned by IOCL/HPCL. No appeal has been filed against confirmation of demand of Rs.7,956/- in respect of supplies made to TA Corporation. Shri Harish Dharmani is in appeal against the penalty of Rs.5 lakhs imposed on him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the demand of Rs.16,58,327/- in respect of alleged clearance of 461.878 MTs of raw materials. Revenue is also in appeal against non imposition of penalty on the employees of M/s.Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd.

3 First we examine the appeal filed by the Revenue. The impugned order drops the demand of Rs.16,58,327/- on the clearances of 461.878 MT of raw material. The commissioner in the impugned order has observed that the stock has been taken on the estimate basis. The numbers have been converted into weight and no valid method of estimation has been adopted to determine the stock. The Revenue has reviewed the orders and asserted that the stock was accepted by excise in-charge and Director of the company in their statement. While admitting that there was a shortcoming in method of estimation, the Revenue has observed that Commissioner could have overcome the shortcoming by recalculation or verify the shortage again. We have seen the annexure-B to Panchnama dated 25/02/2006 where the details of raw materials (unaccounted) are mentioned. The numbers of some items mentioned in the said annexure were recorded as unaccounted stock of raw material. The annexure-B records details of raw material as follows:

a) CR Sheet - 15 Nos

b) Top bottom sheets - 7 Nos

c) CR (Coil) - 2 Nos

d) Royal Paint - 7 drums (20 ltrs each)

e) royal White paint - 5 drums do-

f) Nar clear paint - 2 drums  do 

g) Royal Paint (Yellow) - 7 drums do-

h) Single Red paint - 14 drums do-

i) 250 barrel (210 ltr cap) - without paint j) 200 barrel (210 Ltr each) - damaged k) 100 barrel -do- l) Patra - 100 sheets m) Shell - 200 Nos

It is impossible to calculate the weight of goods from this data. The weight of metal cannot be determined unless the volume is known for which thickness, length and breadth of the item is required. The bland records of number of items, with no details of size to enable calculation of volume, or weight of material, cannot be used to arrive at any estimate of weight. Furthermore, there is a bland statement in para 5B of the SCN that on scrutiny of RG 23A Part I register for the period April 2002 to February 2006 there should have been a stock of 489.458 MT. This is totally bland statement without any data to back it with. What were the entries in the RG 23A part-I which were examined and how the stock was arrived is not shown. Furthermore, while the estimate of the stock of raw material is based on RG 23A Part I register for the period April 2002 to February 2006, the RG 23A part-I of year 2002-2003 is not even a relied upon document. It is not possible to use that data. In view of above we find that the Commissioner has rightly held that there is no reliable evidence of such shortages. The appeal of revenue on this count is dismissed.

4 Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the annexure-A to the show-cause notice on the basis of which it has been alleged that there was a shortage of 7063 barrels, has been prepared by arbitrarily picking up data from the different sources. The annexure A to the SCN reads as follows:

Details of production and clearance of barrels shown in the Private Register Opening stock as on 01/12/2015 as per RG 1 Register of December 2005 926 Production during the period from 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006 as per private record (refer statement dated 03/04/2006 of Noticee No.2 & 4) 18121 Central Excise invoices raised in Nov-2005 and accounted for in RG 1 of November 2005 but he said dispatches shown in December 2005 of private record and hence added to the stock shown at Sr.No.1 2308 Total 21355 Central Excise Invoices raised during the period from 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006 and accounted for in RG-1 12253 Balance 9102 Closing stock as per physical verification on 25/02/2006on 28th February 2006 2309 Balance unaccounted 7063 While opening stock has been taken from the statutory RG-1 register in December 2005, the production has been taken from private records. It was argued that Revenue cannot pick and choose figures from the register as per the convenience without giving justification for the same. Further, it was pointed out that a figure of 2308 barrels has been added on account of the reasons that some invoices were raised in November 2005 but clearance was made in December, 2005. Thus it was alleged that those goods should have been in stock on the day of search. No record of such invoices or the basis of calculating the number of drums is on record. Nowhere in the entire proceedings, the method of arriving at this number, 2308, in the third entry of the chart, has been given. The invoice numbers and date of clearance has not been identified. M/s.Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd. had prepared an annexure-A themselves and submitted before the Commissioner which is as follows:

ANNEXURE A' RECONNCILIAITION STATEMENT Opening stock as per RG 1 Register on 1st Feb 2006 998 Qnty manufactured during the month of Feb 2006 as per ER 1 Return (Earlier RT 12 Return) 2034 Total 3032 Finished Goods cleared for home consumption on payment of duty as per ER! Return (earlier RT 12 return) for the month of Feb 2006 1500 Closing stock as on 28th February 2006 as per RG 1 register and ER 1 return for the month of February 2006 1532 Closing stock as per annexure A to SCN as on 25th February 2006 2039 Closing stock as on 28th February 2006 1532 Difference in two closing stock 507* *Note

Considering the book stock of 28th February is same as of 25th February difference is 507 barrels which is the positive difference i.e. physical stock is more than book stock which does not lead to the conclusion of clandestine removal.

If the physical stock is to be worked out from 25th February to 28th February then invoices issued after 25th February till 28th February needs to be considered. The said invoices are in possession with the department and not available with assessee which needs to be considered.

The commissioner has not given any findings on this Annexure A submitted by them during adjudication proceedings. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the dispatches shown shop floor account for the period 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006 which was recovered from the factory premises cannot be used as a measure of actual clearance. According to him the log book there are many stages before production of drums can be considered as complete. According to him, after the painting process the drums have to be screen printed to make them suitable for a particular buyer. Drums painted are only an intermediate stage.

4.1 The Commissioner in his order (para 36 & 37) has examined this issue. He has observed that the private register withdrawn from the factory shown production and clearance of finished goods for the period 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006 and there were no corresponding issue of Central Excise invoice. He observed that clandestinely cleared goods along with vehicle was sufficient evidence of the activities of clandestine clearance being done by M/s.Maldar Barrel Pvt. Ltd. He also relied on the facts Shri Dharmani has confirmed the shortage of 7063 drums as shown in Annexure-2 to his statements. The Commissioner also asserted that M/s.Padma Travels who was the transporter and supplied the goods to the destinations for which transport charges were also collected. Further, the Commissioner also relied on the fact that Shri Dharmani had accepted the charge and had deposited an amount of Rs.2,04,000/- as part payment towards the duty due on 7063 MS cleared without duty. Thereafter the Commissioner, distinguishes the case laws cited by M/s. Maldar Barrel Pvt. Ltd. on the grounds that in the instant case two parallel statutory records viz., RG-1 register were maintained by the noticee to distribute the production for the same period into two accounts.

4.2 The said annexure deals with stock of the drums for the period 01/12/2005 to 28/02/2006. The first entry in the said annexure is opening stock as per RG-1 register. Then the second entry is an entry of the production as per private register. Then the third entry is an entry of invoices raised in November 2005 and accounted for in RG-1 of November 2005 but the said dispatches shown in December 2005 of private records and hence added to opening stock shown as on 01/12/2005. Then the total of these entries is compared to clearances made on invoice as per ER1 and closing stock as per RG-1. The difference is deemed to be the goods unaccounted for in the record and allegedly cleared without payment of duty. I find that the third entry of the said chart indicates that there is no correlation between the said private record and the statutory records. The statutory records are independent of the private records in respect of production and clearance. Thus if the private record data is taken to be authentic data statutory RG1 record data is the fabricated data. In these circumstances no reliance can be placed on the statutory RG 1 data.

There may not be a doubt that the private records do suggest that the entire production is not being recorded in the statutory records but picking up same data from statutory records and other data from private records does not appears to be correct, as there is no correlation between the two records. The appellants had submitted a revised calculation of Annexure-A for the month of February 2006 in their defence before the Commissioner, however, he has not given any findings on it. Furthermore that data was not of complete period covered by the Annexure A to SCN. The appellants have also submitted before the Commissioner the data of electricity consumption but the findings have been given on said data. For the third entry in Annexure-A to SCN there is no data of the invoices which have been made in respect of the invoices raised in November 2005 and accounted for in RG-1 of November 2005 but where the dispatches are shown in December 2005. The data in annexure- A to SCN in respect of entry 3 there of is not substantiated by the details of actual invoices and RG 1 entries. In view of above, the third entry of Annexure-A appears to be unsupported by evidence.

The appellants during hearing presented their own annexure-A for the period 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006, where they worked out the opening balance as per the private records and arrived at on a figure of 375 after working backwards from the stock as on 08/12/2005 (which is the first entry of stock in the private register). The annexure-A is as follows:

Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd.

Reconciliation of stock as per production log sheet for the period 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006

Opening balance as per production log sheet as on 01/12/2005* 375 Add:

Production during the period 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006 18121 Total

18496 Less:

Dispatched during the period 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006 15982

Clocking stock as on 24/02/2006 2514 Less:

Physical stock as per annexure to SCN 2039

Difference in Stock 475 * Page No.70 of production log sheet exhibit the closing stock of finished goods as 591 barrels as on 08/12/2005. Considering the same as base figure and reverse calculation as under the opening balance as on01/12/2005 is 375 barrels

Closing balance as on 08/12/2015 591 Add:

Dispatch during the period 01/02/2005 to 08/12/2005** 1902 Less:

Production during the period 01/12/2005 to 08/12/2005 1686

Opening Balance as on 01/12/2005 375 In totality I find that there is no correlation between the private and statutory records and the data from difference sources for different purposes does not appeal to logic. The figure of opening balance cannot be taken from RG-1 when other data is taken from private records. It is seen that there are two contesting versions of Annexure A. The dispute is only in respect of opening balance as on 1.12.2005 and the third entry, pertaining to the invoices issued in November 2005 for which it was alleged that clearances were made in December 2005. No cognizance of these entries can be taken in these circumstances. However, one data which both the sides have not disputed is the data of production of 18121 and clearance of 15982 barrels during 01/12/2005 to 24/02/2006. The statutory records however suggest clearance of 12253 barrels (Annexure-A to SCN) against invoices on payment of duty. According to the Annexures prepared by revenue and by Maldar Barrels Pvt Ltd, the clearance as per private records is 15982 barrels and as per statutory records is 12253 barrels. The difference works out to 3729 barrels which were cleared unaccounted during this period. The duty in respect of these numbers of barrels can be is sustained on the basis of facts admitted by both parties. For the rest of the barrels there is no reliable evidence to substantiate the clandestine removal. In respect of this charge the order is modified to the extent stated in this para.

5. Now we examine the issue of demand raised on the basis of parallel invoice book and RG-1 register. It is argued by the appellants that in the parallel invoice book submitted by them all four copies of the invoices are available. This implies no copy of the invoice has been removed from the invoice book. It defeats logic. How can a clearance on an invoice be made if it does not accompany the goods. If invoices have not been detached from the book and accompanied the goods they are of no use whatsoever. The entire purpose of making a parallel invoice is to send duplicate invoice along with the goods and destroy when the goods reach destination. Further more it is also undisputed that the said parallel invoice book and parallel RG-1 were not recovered or seized by revenue, but the same were handed over voluntarily by Shri Haresh Dhamani under letter dated 26/04/2006. It is not clear why would an evader voluntarily submit duplicate sets of documents which will implicate him. Furthermore Shri Ansari the Excise Assistant and Shri Khan clerk cum supervisor have asserted that the duplicate invoice book for September 2005 were made at behest of Shri Harish Dharmani.

Shri Dharmani has asserted that these documents were made for training purpose. The circumstances are highly suspicious and point to highly suspicious operations. The Revenue has recorded statement of the two transporters (S.No.19, 20 & 21 of relied upon documents) but no question in respect of these invoices have been asked. The para 5E of SCN which deals with allegations in respect of duplicate invoice book and RG-1 does not even mention about the statements of the transporters. In fact the transporters do not appear to have been confronted with this evidence. It is further seen that no verification has been conducted at the buyers end or any money flow has been detected. It is seen that a large number of duplicate invoices are addresses to IOCL and HPCL. Both are public sector oil companies. It is not possible for the public sector oil companies to make purchases off the record. Even if the appellants are making sales off the record they will receive money from IOCL and HPCL only through proper banking channels. No investigation into the banking records has been done. No investigation at the IOCL or HPCL end has been conducted.

From the facts above it is apparent that there are reasons to suspect clandestine activity but there is grossly insufficient investigation done. Obvious things which should have been done like verification at buyer end and verification of payments by HPCL or IOCL has not been done especially when invoices had all the details. The transporters have not been confronted with duplicate records. In these circumstances we are unable to sustain demand on the basis of the evidences produced by the revenue. The appeal against the charge made in para 5E of the SCN is allowed.

6. Now we come to record part of appeal of revenue where the revenue has challenged non-imposition of penalty on the employees of the company. The impugned orders does not impose penalty on the employees on the grounds that they had nothing to gain personally and were acting under direction of the Director therefore, no penalty can be imposed. It is seen that charge in para 5A of SCN is being partially sustained. Charges in para 5C and 5D have been sustained in order in original and not challenged by the appellants. Charge in para 5E is not being sustained. The demand in respect of para 5B & 5E is not sustained so no penalty in respect of these charges can be imposed on employees. In respect of charge in para 5C and 5D the same have been admitted by appellant and no appeal is filed.

6.1 Shri. Harish Dharmani, Noticee no 2, has appealed against imposition of penalty. It is seen that whatever has happened has happened under his supervision and control. It is seen that charges in para 5B and 5E of the SCN have not been sustained. Charges in para 5A have been partially sustained. Charges in para 5 C and 5 D have been sustained. However it is seen that charges against Maldar Barrels Ltd. have not been sustained in respect of a large quantum of demand. Only a small part of the demand has been sustained. Looking at these facts the penalty on Sh Harish Dharmani, Noticee no 2 is reduced from Rs 5 Lakhs to Rs Fifty Thousand only.

6.2 In para 5A of SCN there is no charge against noticee number 4. He is only alleged to be making shop floor records and not excise records. For excise records he has not admitted anything. He has no role in other charges. It is very clear that noticee No.3 and 5 had some role in the preparation of Excise documents of M/s.Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd. However, no role of noticee No.4 has been identified in respect of preparation of excise related document. Since he is not concerned with the excise related documents and no knowledge is attributed to him no penalty can be imposed on notice no 4.

6.3 The role of Shri Khan as per his statement dated 25/12/200 is limited to making fake and duplicate invoice of returned goods for which he has admitted. He has also admitted making duplicate RG-1 register, however charges in respect of those documents are not sustained and hence no penalty in respect of those documents can be imposed. He was also involved in making regular invoices and excise related work. The charges in para 5A of SCN in respect of clandestine clearance of goods are upheld in respect of 3729 barrels. Thus his involvement in clandestine clearance in those cases is established. In view of above penalty of Rs Ten thousand is imposed.

6.4 Shri Ansari has admitted making duplicate invoice book, however since charge in respect of duplicate invoice book is not sustained no penalty for that role can be imposed. However he has prepared the duplicate invoices on the basis of which wrong credit was taken. For his role in that penalty of rupees five thousand is imposed.

7 Accordingly, the penalty under Section 11AC on M/s.Maldar Barrel Ltd., is revised to the total of duty confirmed against charge in para 5A of the SCN in terms of order above and the duty confirmed against charges 5C and 5D of the SCN in the impugned order.

8. The appeals are partly allowed and impugned order is modified as indicated in order above.

(Pronounced in Court on)

(Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (Raju) Member (Technical)

pj

1 21

Appeal No.E/1361, 1528 & 1529/10