TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insulated wires seized from the premises of M/s. Selmor Agencies, Bombay-2 are liable for confiscation but they are provisionally released and despite direction they are not produced in terms of the bond. Hence I appropriate a sum of ₹ 100 (Rs. one hundred only) towards the value of the goods. (iii) 19 coils of PVC insulated wire seized from the premises of M/s. Kapoor Agency are liable for confiscation but they are provisionally released and despite direction they are not produced in terms of the bond. Hence I appropriate a sum of ₹ 50 (Rs. fifty only) towards the value of the goods. (iv) M/s. Power Cable Industries are further directed to pay appropriate duty on 206 coils of PVC insulated electric wries, 54 coils of PVC insulated wires and 19 coils of PVC insulated electric wires cleared to M/s. P.D. Jain Bros., Bombay-2, M/s. Selmor Agency, Bombay, and M/s. Kapoor Agencies, Bombay-2 respectively without payment of duty under the guise of PVC sleevings if not already paid. (v) 39 coils of PVC electric wires seized at the premises of M/s. Hindustan Electricals are confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but option is given to redeem th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bros. Thereafter, the Officers visited the shop of M/s. Selmor Agencies on 5-1-1976 and that agency produced 54 coils valued at ₹ 1500 as having been received from the appellants without any gate pass or invoice. The said goods were also seized. On 6-1-1976 they recorded a statement of Shri P.M. Bhatija who appeared to have stated that he actually received PVC wires instead of PVC sleevings under different bill from the appellants and when he came to know of this he had warned the appellants to show the correct description in the invoice. Thereafter, the Officers visited the shop of M/s. Kapoor Agencies and the Proprietor of the said agency, Shri D.M. Khanna admitted having received PVC wires instead of PVC sleevings as shown in the bills. The officers also seized 19 coils valued at ₹ 536 which were in stock and which were stated to have been supplied by the appellants to the said agency. On 5-4-1975, the Central Excise Officers visited the Tardeo Air-conditioned market, but they did not find B.A. Electricals, and the summons sent to B.A. Electricals to the address found in the bills of the appellants were received `not found . On 7-1-1976 they recorded a statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) unsuccessfully. Hence the second appeal. 5. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri R.J. Parekh, the learned Advocate for the appellants contended that the order of the Collector (Appeals) is not a speaking order. He did not consider any of the grounds urged by the appellants, and he simply dismissed the appeal by a general observation that he agrees with the findings of the Deputy Collector. Shri Parekh further contended that the Deputy Collector has based his findings on the uncorroborated statement of the co-accused, and therefore, the findings so arrived are bad in law, Shri Parekh contended that the allegation caused to the appellants were that they were selling PVC wires to the various purchasers who were not describing in the bills as PVC sleevings, but then no documentary evidence has been produced either by the purchasers or by the department to establish the above allegation. Shri Parekh contended that the price of sleevings has always been less than the price of wires and that the Central Excise Officers have not made any efforts to find out whether the price shown in the bills which were referred to by the various purchasers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ented to me at the time of personal hearing. I find that the appellants have come up in appeal with the same arguments as were made before in the adjudicating authority who has discussed these arguments in detail in his adjudication order and which fully endorse. Since the appellants have not produced any additional material before me for consideration and I do not find anything incorrect in the findings of the adjudicating authority. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In view of the above the appeal is rejected. This is in our opinion is a very unsatisfactory way of disposing of appeal, particularly when the statute requires the Collector (Appeals) to state the points for determination, the decision thereof and the reasons for the decision. The Collector (Appeals) apparently had not properly understood the scope of the appellate power. Under law he was re-acquired to reappraise the evidence and also to consider the various grounds urged by the appellants in support of their appeal. The Collector (Appeals) in the instant case has failed to consider the grounds urged before him in a satisfactory manner. In the normal course, we would have remanded this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Collector was not to make use of any material in respect of which the appellants did not have prior notice. In the instant case in the show cause notice issued to the appellants the department has specifically stated the evidences that are going to be relied upon and also other circumstances. The appellants had ample opportunity to know the statements made by the witnesses. It was not contended that the appellants were not furnished with the copies of the statements. Besides, the above, the records disclose that the appellants have even cross-examined Shri Pravinchandra R. Mehta, Shri Daya Shanker Khanna, Shri Pratap M. Bhatija, and Shri Pritam J. Samtani. In the said circumstances, Shri Parekh in our opinion was not correct in contending that the Deputy Collector has based his findings on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused. It is no doubt true that while issuing show cause notice, the department did issue a show cause notice to the above-mentioned persons. That was because they had admitted in their statements that they had not received gate pass. But then the department did not pursue the allegations against those persons because the department was satisfied with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso stated that he had warned the appellants to show the correct description in the invoice. In the said circumstances the contention urged by Shri Parekh cannot have any force. 11. It was made much of by Shri Parekh that the Central Excise Officers have not cared to verify the prevailing price of the PVC wires and PVC sleevings. According to Shri Parekh there was much difference in the price between PVC wires and PVC sleevings, and having regard to the difference in price it is very unlikely that the purchasers would accept the bills in which the prices are given. Though this argument appears attractive, on close scrutiny we find that there is not much merit in this. As has been stated earlier most of the purchasers are small traders. It is quite likely that in the bills the appellants were mentioning the price of PVC wires and collecting the price of PVC wires, but they are only describing the goods as PVC sleevings. So far as the purchasers are concerned they have received PVC wires and they have paid the price on the wires. Therefore, it did not matter much how the appellants have described the goods. The appellants themselves have not produced the duplicate bills maintained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
