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

1993 (2) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duties of excise by Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-1963 issued under Section 12 of the Act :- I. Goods detained/seized from the delivery van No. MMP 799 dated 16-4-85/18-4-85 respectively. Description Quantity (Kgs.) Value (Rs.) Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion (Modified) 1,110 28,860.00 II. Goods detained/seized from the factory premises of M/s. Nevichem Synthetic Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 16-4-1985/18-4-1985 respectively.   Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion (Modified) 5,400 1,40,400.00 III. Goods seized from the premises of M/s. Nevichem Agencies on 18-4-1985.   Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion (Modified) 5,771.60 Rs. 1,50,061.60   Total  12,281.60 Kg. Rs. 3,19,321.60 2. Since the goods had been released pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egation is based on an Exercise Note Book recovered from the appellants during the search in which entries relating to production during certain batches have been found for the period 16-3-1985 to 12-4-1985 during which period no entries were made in the RG1 Account. In his statement dated 25-9-1985, Shri Navnit H. Joshi, one of the Directors of the appellant company, had confirmed on being shown this Exercise Note Book that 5 batches of PAD each consisting of 1030 Kgs. were manufactured during the period from 16-3-1985 to 31-3-1985 (total quantity 5150 Kgs.) and 7 batches (total quantity 7210 Kgs.) were manufactured during the period 1-4-1985 to 16-4-1985 - till the date of visit of the Preventive Officers to the factory. In his statement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 985 will not be desirable inasmuch as the production can only be obtained after 16 to 20 hours and as such, the goods could not be produced for modification earlier than 1-4-1985. The further claim is that the appellants became eligible for fresh exemption from duty on PAD in the financial year which commenced on 1-4-1985 under Notification No. 85/85, dated 17-3-1985 and, the quantity of PAD which actually got manufactured on and from 1-4-1985 should not be denied exemption by treating the entries upto 31-3-1985 to be relatable as the production of the previous year 1984-85. During the hearing of the appeal, Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned Consultant, took the further argument that, in any case, the goods which became entitled to exemption w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory Industrial Estate v. Supdt. of Central Excise, [1986 (23) E.L.T. 313], in which it was held that 'excisable goods' do not become non-excisable after exemption. The proviso to sub-rule (2) made it clear that a Gate-Pass had to be issued even for goods removed for captive consumption within the factory for manufacture of other goods. It was, therefore, a mere technical requirement of the law. Similarly, the provisions of Rule 173Q were also applicable to removal of excisable goods in contravention of any provisions of the Central Excise Rules. Since the value of the goods removed in the present case was well over Rs. 2 lakhs, Collector had rightly imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,0 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion (Modified) was liable to confiscation under Section 120 of the Customs Act as made applicable to like matters under Section 12 of the Central Excises & Salt Act. We do not consider that in the circumstances of the case, the fine in lieu of confiscation was excessive and reject the prayer for reduction in fine. Since the delivery van was used for transportation of goods which were liable to confiscation and the order of confiscation has been upheld, the order confiscating the van is also upheld. We do not consider any reason to reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation of the van. For the same reasons, we do not consider there is any justification for reduction in the penalty on the appellants. The appeal, there .....

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