TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh. He imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant M/s. Ajanta Transport Co., Rayagada under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rule 52A. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on M/s. Ajanta Transport Company, Rayagada, under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for contravention of Rule 193 and the truck No. ORU 2064 which was concerned in the carrying of contraband goods was confiscated and it was ordered that the same shall stand redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Appeal Nos. E-57/87-Cal. and E-58/87-Cal. are directed by the above captioned appellants against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar in Order No. V(25)15-7/85/Collr-25/86, dated 28-11-1986. In terms of that order, the learned Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rule 52A, read with Rule 173G. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on M/s. IMFA, under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rules 51 and 193. The seized charge chrome weighing 72M.T. was also confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods at Hisar, they were unloaded in the premises of the officers colony. Therefore, they seized the goods and issued a show cause notice to both the M/s. IMFA Ltd. and M/s. Ajanta Transport Co., to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Rules 52A, 173Q and 210 read with Rule 51 and Rule 193 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. A show cause notice was also issued to M/s. Ajanta Transport Co., as to why the penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules for having contravened Rule 51 and Rule 193 ibid. They were also asked to show cause as to why the lorry should not be confiscated. They filed the replies and after adjudication the impugned order was passed. 5. The brief facts relating to appeal Nos. E-57/87-Cal and E-58/87-Cal are also similar. In this case basing on information that a huge quantity of charge chrome had been surreptitiously removed from the manufacturing premises of M/s. IMFA Ltd., the officers of the Central Excise, Rayagada visited the spot on 15-3-1985 in the afternoon and found that some charge chrome are stocked there. They also noticed one truck ORU 2064 unloading some materials. The officers on coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector was wrong in holding that the appellant, M/s. IMFA Ltd., in both the proceedings had violated the provisions of Rule 52A read with Rule 173G, and that they are liable to penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 52A. It was also contended by Shri Mohanty that the learned Collector was wrong in holding that the applicants have contravened the provisions of Rule 193 and were liable to penalty under Rule 210. It was stated that the goods were transported to the site in the officers colony at the request of the transporters due to non-availability of long distance truck and this explanation should have been accepted by the learned Collector in the face of contemporaneous evidence produced by the parties. It was contended that admittedly the local trucks were engaged by the transporter to move the goods to the officers colony of the appellants for temporary storage for onward despatch to Hisar and Alwar as and when the long distance trucks were available. He also pointed out that in the gate passes the ultimate destination i.e., Hisar and Alwar were shown. Shri Mohanty therefore stated that this bona fide explanation and conduct on the part of M/s. IMFA Ltd. should have been accepted. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were liable to penalty under Rule 210. It was contended that the compliance of the provisions of Rule 193 is with the Industrial Users, and in this case the weight of each package is marked as is evident from the weighment sheet at the time of seizure. He also contended that the goods were covered by transport documents and gate passes in the form of GP 2/GP 1. He also contended that the learned Collector was wrong in holding that the appellants have violated the provisions of Rule 51 read with Rule 193. In this connection he contended that the appellant s explanation was that the requirements of markings have been dispensed with in respect of goods falling under T.I. 25 vide Madras Collectorate Trade Notice dated 25-11-1978 and this fact should have been accepted. It was also contended that it has been the prevailing practice before and after seizure that batch number, running serial are not marked to the packages. He contended that the name of the manufacturers, the gross weight and the net weight are printed on the packages. Shri Mohanty also contended that the learned Collector was wrong in holding that the charge chrome under seizure is liable for confiscation, and that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terstate transport permits, which is required for moving these goods to Hisar and Alwar. It was, therefore, contended that the movement of the goods in this case is with a deliberate intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. Shri Sarkar also contended that some group of trucks had made four to five trips each on 14th and 15th March, 1985 from M/s. IMFA Ltd. and, therefore, it cannot be imagined that they could reach Alwar or Hisar within 24 hours. He also contended that the entire set of documents of GP 2s and AR 3s are manipulated and false documents. Shri Sarkar further contended that since these goods were dumped in the officers colony of M/s. IMFA Ltd. and since Shri Sahu, their supervisor, was present, the same was done under the supervision of Shri Sahu. In this connection he contended that the destination given in the gate pass as Hisar and Alwar were false and they were so given in order to save these appellants from the consequences. Therefore, he contended that these gate passes are invalid. He also pointed out that in the statement of Shri P.K. Panigrahi, Senior Manager of M/s. IMFA Ltd., he had stated that for transporting charge chrome, the above trucks never ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r our determination are (1) Whether the imposition of the penalty on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rule 52A, read with Rule 173G is justified; (2) Whether the imposition of redemption fine on the appellant M/s. IMFA Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 75,000/- in each of the adjudication order are in accordance with law; (3) Whether the imposition of penalty on the appellants M/s. Orissa Transport Service and M/s. Ajanta Transport Co. (P) Ltd. under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rules 51 and 193 are in accordance with law. 12. Point No. (1) :- As far as Point No. 1 is concerned, it is seen that the case of the appellants as pleaded before the adjudicating authority and before this Tribunal is to the effect that they have already given the seized charge chrome to the concerned parties and due to non-availability of trucks the transporters have removed the same from their factory and had kept them in the premises of the officers colony. It was also contended that in both the cases of seizure the respective gate passes were issued and the destinations were shown as Hisar and Alwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We also set aside the imposition of penalty on this account imposed on this appellant by adjudication Order No. V(25)15-7/85/Collr. 25/86, dated 28-11-1986 to the extent of Rs. 75,000/-. So also in view of the above reasonings, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- each on the appellants, M/s. Orissa Transport Service and M/s. Ajanta Transport Co. (P) Ltd. for violation of Rule 52A is hereby set aside. 13. Point No. (2) :- As far as Point No. (2) is concerned, in Order No. V(25)15-7/85-Collr. 25/86, dated 28-11-1986, the learned adjudicating authority had stated that the goods are liable for confiscation and a redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- was imposed on the appellants, M/s. IMFA Ltd. Since we have already come to the conclusion that Rule 52A was not contravened in this case, the redemption fine imposed is not in accordance with law and the same is hereby set aside. Even otherwise it is seen that the goods in question were already released by the department on the basis of the directions given by the Hon ble High Court. In so releasing the goods bond was executed along with a Bank Guarantee, but there was no direction of the Hon ble High Court that the goods released sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. But he contended that the name of the manufacturers and the gross weight and net weight are printed on the bags. But in this case the exemption given for such markings by the Madras Collectorate will apply only within that jurisdiction. Shri Mohanty, learned advocate, could not point out that such exemption was given by the Bhubaneswar Collectorate in accordance with Rule 51. So also under Rule 193 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the goods obtained under Rule 192 shall be transported immediately from the place of procurement to the applicant s premises and they shall be packed in such a manner as the Collector may direct, and the weight of the goods in each package shall be marked on it, and where necessary the goods shall be covered by a transport document. It is, therefore, seen that in accordance with Rule 51 the markings are not done and, therefore, the imposition of penalty on the appellants, M/s. Orissa Transport Service and M/s. Ajanta Transport Co. (P) Ltd. are in accordance with law. Hence, the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on them under Rule 210 is hereby confirmed. 16. In Order No. V(25) 15-6/85/Collr-24/86, dated 28-11-1986 the learned Collector had confiscate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
