TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. GTW, second appellant, for certain processes under Rule 57F(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Central Excise Officers on conducting checks in the premises of second appellant found that the unit was manufacturing metal containers. The unit was actually doing job work on contract basis for the first appellant. Physical verification of the stock revealed that certain goods like metal containers, semi-finished containers, tin sheets were lying in the factory but the job work register contains no entry after challan No. 36, dated 19-6-1988 which indicated nil balance stock. 3. Shri Ravi Goyal, Director of the Company explained that the containers were defective. Regarding tin sheets it was explained that the first appellant M/s. TMC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellant, penalty could not be imposed on both i.e. the firm as well as on the proprietor. He said that it was a simple case of not covering the movement through prescribed challans and no duty evasion was involved. The Ld. Advocate cited the case of S.L. Kirloskar Others v. UOI and Others reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 533 (Bom.) = 1993 (47) ECR 175 (Bom.) to support the plea that the penalties could not be imposed on Directors and Executives and the case of Art Pack Industries, Bombay and Others v. CCE, Pune - reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 428 = 1992 (19) ETR 1 to support the plea that the penalties could not be levied on job workers. 5. Ld. DR reiterated the departmental arguments and submitted that movement of goods under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd appellant. In these circumstances it is difficult to maintain penalty on second appellant, GTW under Rule 173Q as has been done, since this Rule is attracted only in case of manufacturer, producer or licensee of a warehouse. In regard to personal penalty under Rule 209A, however, the case cited by the Ld. Advocate S.L. Kirloskar Others (supra) is distinguishable. In that case offence took place before Rule 209A was enacted. Shri Ravi Goyal was familiar with Central Excise Procedure and it is obvious that the goods were not covered by Transport Vouchers as required nor were they accounted at his premises. 7. The first appellant, TWC, is a proprietary concern. Penalty, however, has been imposed both on the proprietary concern as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
