TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia Printing Works, M/s. J.D. Woollen and Silks Mills M/s. Pahwa Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd on 29-10-1988; that during the investigation the officers obtained photocopies of the outside bill collection register of the Punjab Sind Bank; that as per the said register 38 sale bills for the period 18-1-1988 to 29-3-1988 of processed man-made fabrics valued at Rs. 16.98 lakhs issued by New India Printing Works were pending collection; that similarly 77 sale bills for the period 1-3-1988 to 10-11-1988 of processed man-made fabrics valued at Rs. 34.06 lakhs were also pending. The ld. Advocate, further, mentioned that on being asked about outstanding bills which were not accounted for in the account books of the Appellants, Shri Dharam Pal, Partner, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion does not arise; that the Commissioner has discriminated against them as in respect of other 39 customers who were placed similarly, no penalty has been imposed on them. He also mentioned that in any event the imposition of penalty is illegal in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507 (Del.), wherein it was held that Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 contains no provisions for imposition of penalty and the provisions relating to confiscation and penalty in the Central Excise Act are not applicable to the additional excise duties; that this decision has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Prakash Moti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods covered by the outstanding bills should have been received by them as normally the acceptance of hundies is given only after the receipt of goods. The ld. DR, therefore, contended that the Appellants did have the conscious knowledge of the goods being liable for confiscation and as such the penalty is imposable on them. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that the duty involved in the present matter against the manufacturer was additional excise duty which is levied under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The provisions of this Act came for interpretation by the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills, supra, and it was held by the Delhi High Court therein th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
