Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (12) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntral Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Rule 9(2), Rs, 500 under Rule 52A(5), Rs. 5,000 under Rule 173Q and Rs. 500 under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on M/s. Steel Industries Kerala Ltd., Steel Fabrication Unit, Shertallai. The quantities in respect of which clearances are said to have been made without payment of proper duty are detailed in Annexures A to G of the Show Cause Notice dated 26-9-83. 2.  Of these, proceedings had been dropped in respect of Annexures A and B. In respect of Annexure-G, the charge is that the goods had been removed from the fabrication unit of the appellants to their foundry unit without following the prescribed Central Excise procedures ; in particular, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5) are said to have been returned by the buyer for rectification of certain defects and the delivery challans under which they were taken out of the factory were returned to the buyer after rectification. 5. Before us, the representative of the appellants concentrated on the goods covered by Annexure-G. He pointed out that prior to 28-2-82, for obtaining the benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E. - use of goods produced in one factory of a manufacturer in another factory of his-no particular procedure has been prescribed. It was not incumbent on the manufacturer to follow Chapter X of the procedures-a refinement which was introduced with effect from 28-2-1982 and hence not relevant to most of the clearances concerned in the present c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the time of removal, there was not sufficient balance in the Personal Ledger Account. This will be clear if the consolidated statement submitted alongwith the reply to . the show cause notice to the Deputy Collector is seen. 7. In regard to Annexure-D he: observed that there was no evidence of actual fabrication by the appellants. In the absence of -positive proof of manufacture, it was not correct on the part of the Collector to have held that the goods were in fact manufactured and then cleared from the appellant's factory. 8. He did not press the issue regarding Annexure-E as the amount involved was small. 9. In regard to Annexure F, he urged that mere carelessness or non-inclusion in the returns should not invite penalti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... each other, each is a self-contained unit in its own right. Notification No. 118/75 contemplates removal of the goods produced in one factory of manufacture to another factory of his for use thereat. 12. The term 'factory' has been defined in Sec. 2(e) of the Act as "any premises, including the precincts thereof wherein or any part of which excisable goods other than salt are manufactured or wherein or in any part of which any manufacturing process connected with the production of these goods is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on" (Emphasis supplied). During the relevant period (July 1981 to February 1982), no excisable goods were either being manufactured or connected processes carried on in the foundry unit - it was being .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin in regard to goods covered by Annexure G is maintainable in law and in facts and as such, his order is maintainable. 14. Though the relevant L. 4 licence was issued only on 4-2-82, the clearances of structures for use in its construction upto even 5-3-82 would suggest that production had commenced even by early March 1982. However, we are inclined to leave the matter with a finding that clearances covered by delivery challans upto 4-2-82 are not covered in terms of Notification No. 118/75. 15. In regard to Annexure 'C', we note that no broad attempt has been made to verify the claim of the appellant that at the time of removal of the goods, there was sufficient balance in the Personal Le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates