TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturers of parts of refrigerators falling under Item 29(A)(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. On 22-5-1970, the removed 6 condensers and 5 chillers under gate passes No. 8 to 10 at the concessional rate of duty of 40% under Notification No. 50/70, dated 1-3-1970, instead of 40% ad valorem, specified in Notification No. 80/62, dated 24-4-1962, without fulfilling the conditions of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which was a condition of the former notification. After issue of a show-cause notice and grant of a hearing, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, confirmed the demand for different duty, but did not impose any penalty. The Appellate Collector found that the L6 licence was granted to the consignee on 10-6-1970 and the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on receipt of intimation from the consignee that they had applied for L6 licence and a CT 2 Certificate, the parts were cleared after due intimation to the Superintendent who raised no objection. Had the L6 licence been issued promptly, the CT 2 certificate would have been in possession of the appellants before the despatch of the goods. From the records, there is no dispute as to the use of the parts which are the subject of the demand of duty. The Notification was effective from 1-3-1970 and since the application for a L6 licence was made prior to the despatch of the goods, the licence should have been given with effect from the date of application. The order-in-original is wrong when it seeks to defer the effective date to the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave the consignee against whom action should have been taken and not the consignor. 5. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, SDR stated that the conditions of the exemption notification had not been complied with. There was force in the Appellate Collector s finding that it could not be taken for granted that the L6 licence would be issued. There was, therefore, an irregularity in clearing the goods at the concessional rate when it was incumbent on the consignee to hold such a licence and for the consignor to avail of the concession only after making sure of this through the medium of CT 2 Certificate. He conceded that there was no question of misuse of the parts cleared at the concessional rate and that the offence was technical. 6. The Tribunal obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
