TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 500 respectively on T. Rajagopal Asari, A. Madasamy and M. Arumugam under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. On the basis of intelligence that the appellant got lorries manufactured out of old bus chassis through certain body builders, the Department issued a letter to the appellant dated 15-9-1987 calling for details and the appellant furnished a list of 26 vehicles as manufactured by different body builders. Thereafter, the Central Excise Superintendent, Tuticorin Range, after registering a case against the appellant, issued a letter on 4-12-1987 demanding duty at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per vehicle for the said 26 vehicles amounting to Rs. 1,04,000 and also cess at the rate of 1/8th of adv value. The appellant herein chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orin Range. (3) Lr. No. Nil dated 6-9-1988 of the Supdt. (Preventive), Tuticorin division. (4) Mahazar dated 7-9-1988 of the Supdt. (Preventive), Tuticorin division. (5) Letter dated 9-9-1988 of our Advocates, Narman Associates. Please refer your letter I cited. In case, it is decided that Central Excise duty has to be paid for the 26 buses body were built on behalf of us, we undertake to discharge the duty liability. An amount of Rs. 1,04,000/- as duty for the 26 body built vehicles has been paid vide challan No. 19 dated 17-9-1988. Since the duty has already been paid, you are requested to release the vehicles. Thanking you, Encl : 1 challan. Yours faithfully, For Tamil Nadu Goods Transport Corpn. Ltd. Sd.... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by any show cause notice; (3) that when the seizure is illegal any amount deposited by the appellant for release of the vehicles seized cannot be appropriated or adjusted towards the duty liability of third parties; (4) that the show cause notice does not allege that the appellant is liable to pay any duty on the goods in question; (5) that the only allegation in the show cause notice against the appellant is that the appellant received non-duty paid goods knowing or having reason to believe that they have not suffered duty incurring penal consequences in terms of Rules 173Q and 209A of the Central Excise Rules; (6) that a perusal of the impugned order would bear out that the appellant is not held the manufacturer and indeed there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire records, we find that even in the show cause notice there was no demand of duty against the appellant nor any allegation or charge that the appellant would be liable to pay duty for the goods in question. The records also indicate that a letter of demand issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise without issue of show cause notice was stayed by the Hon ble High Court and during the continuance of the order of stay the authorities have effected seizure of the vehicles. It is only in this context the appellant deposited the amount for release of the vehicles and gave an undertaking in the letter dated 17-9-88 as extracted above. It may be noted that body builders have done a job work on behalf of the appellant on the chassis provided by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this case. 6. The impugned order has exonerated the appellant of duty liability. The adjudicating authority in this regard has also observed as under: The Tamil Nadu Goods Transport Corporation Limited having been dissolved, I do not wish to impose any penalty on them. I however, would like to chastise and warn the concerned officials and advise them to behave like corporate officials with positive attitude and not to squander public money on avoidable litigation as well as waste the Hon ble Court s time for their vain sense of hurt. It is only thereafter the amount that was available with the Department was said to be adjusted towards the duty liability of the body builders. Such adjustment by the adjudicating authority cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord the plea of the Revenue that the letter was given by the appellant only for discharging the duty liability of the goods in question irrespective of the person who has to pay it. We leave that question open for the reasons seated above. 7. Before parting with this case, we should like to observe that when the High Court has already granted stay of the demand, the Departmental authorities have effected seizure of the vehicles during the continuance of the stay. The remarks of the adjudicating authority in para (iii) of the operative portion of the impugned order as extracted above, in our view, are not called for and lack restraint and sobriety and the Authority would apparently appear to find fault with the appellant for having moved t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
