S .S.KANG,VICE PRESIDENT - (1.)These appeals are directed against the same order. They were heard together and are disposed of under common order.
(2.)THERE is a duty demand of over Rs. 27 lakhs against the first appellant who is a manufacturer of craft paper. The split -up of duty demand may be noted first:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.No. Description Quantity Value Duty involved (Rs.) Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o. (Kgs.) (in Rs.) BED CESS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. By clearing the 1284470 10917995 873440 13647 887087 goods recorded in the RG1 without payment of duty at all. (shortage in stock on 21.2.2000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2. By suppressing 1919228.400 16313441 1305075 20392 1325467 the production and clearing the unrecorded production without payment of duty (30.7.99 to 20.2.2000) (Based on unaccounted receipt of raw material) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3. By Irregularly 360950 NA 525444 - 525444 utilizing the credit of duty paid on Soda Ash towards the payment of duty on final product i.e. Media Kraft Paper (26.8.97 to 20.2.2000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4. Modvat credit 4785 NA 1646 - 1646 irregularly availed on Alum (Input) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL 2705600 34039 2739644 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(3.)IN regard to the duty demand of about Rs.9 lakhs at S. No. 1, the submission of the appellant is that entire production and clearance had been entered in the statutory books of accounts. There was only delay in payment of duty, on account of financial difficulties, It is also being pointed out that the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 9,25,000/ - (at the time of visit of the Central Excise officers). Thus, duty demand at S. No. 1 is not disputed at all.
The duty demand of over Rs. 13 lakhs at S. No. 2 is on the ground that the appellant had suppressed receipts of raw materials and production. This demand is based on certain receipts of waste paper found in appellant's registers. Entries in these registers are for short periods like 30.7.99 to 12.8.99, 3.11.99 to 19.11.99 and 10.2.2000 to 22.2.2000. The entries are in regard to waste paper as well as wood. In the impugned order, a pro -rata projection of receipts of unaccounted waste paper has been made based on the entries in the register and duty demand made. The appellant had contended that part of the entries in the registers find place in the statutory records as well and some of the weighment slips related to goods brought by other people for weighment alone. During hearing of the case, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that, in any case, there was no justification for a pro -rata projection of receipt of raw materials and duty demand, if at all, could be only in regard to likely production of craft paper from the unaccounted quantities of waste paper found entered in the slips. It has also been pointed out that the duty demand for such unaccounted quantity of craft paper comes to only Rs. 3,81,360/ -.