1987 (2) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lity to the benefit of Notifications Nos. 80/80 and 83/83; (c) the Appellant had contravened any or all of the provisions in Rules 9(2) and 173(Q); and (d) the levy of penalties of Rs. 500/- under Rule 173-Q and Rs. 250/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules was justified and they are maintainable? 2.  Certain penalties which would appear to have been imposed on i M/s. Perfect Agencies are not relevant for our purpose in this appeal by M/s. Perfect Cartons. No appeal of M/s. Perfect Agencies is before us. 3.  Brief facts are :- (a) a notice, alleging inter alia, (i) unity of ownership of both the appellant as well as M/s. Perfect Agencies, (ii) the manufacture of duplex board printed cartons aggregating in value of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ured by them should have been assessed in their hands and when, once it is so done, the appellant would be well within the exemption limits and, in consequence, the demand for duty would abate. 5.  The relevant clause in notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 read as under :- "4. Where a factory producing the specified goods is run at different times during a financial year by different manufacturers, the aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods from such factory in any such year shall not exceed rupees five lakhs and rupees ten lakhs respectively in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 1." There was a similar clause in subsequent notification No. 83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 also, though somewhat differently wo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e goods manufactured and cleared by M/s. Perfect Agencies. During the hearing before us, the learned representative of the department saw the force in this point and he suggested that the matter may be remanded to the Additional Collector for allocation of the duty liability between the two manufacturers. We agree with him. 7. In the consequence, we modify the impugned order only to the extent that the duty liability in respect of the total clearances from the factory shall be apportioned between the two manufacturers. The Additional Collector shall do this apportionment on the basis of the respective clearances of the two firms. But for this modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X