9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the order as the 17th day of October 1983. Before the commencement of the proceedings, the appellant was called upon by this court to explain Why the appeal should not be dismissed being hit by limitation. Shri A.K. Saha, S.D.R. submitted that by mistake the date of communication of the order has been mentioned in column No. 3 of the Memorandum of appeal as 17-10-83 against the correct date of communication of the order, the 20th day of October 1983. He has pleaded that the Asstt. Collector (T & A) Central Excise, Calcutta vide letter C. No. V(17)2/557/TBL/CE/83, dated the 16-2-1984 had intimated the Registry that the correct date of communication of the order is the 20th October 1983. Shri Saha has also produced the original file of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s July ₹ 77, March '78 and August '78 as revealed from the private record maintained by the said company but they did not maintain any statutory records for production and removal of the said goods without payment of C.E. Duty amounting to ₹ 3481.77 (3316.25 basic+165.52 spl). They were called upon to show cause why the said amount of duty should not be recovered under section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In reply the respondent contended that the said goods being manufactured turned into bad quality which was not fit for marketing and got to be destroyed by repulping as brokes. The said contention of the respondent company was not found tenable by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise who demanded the duty as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led along with the paper book. The same is re-produced as under; Page No. Lot No. Quality GSM Machine Wt. 101 2443 Blue Wove or Reels 570 mm 56 600 kg. 110 2585 Cream Wove or Reels 560 mm 55 500 kgs. 110 2586 -do- 50 500 kgs. 118 2690 W/M white Bank(English Bank 58 550 kgs. 2150 kgs. 6. Shri Saha went on to submit that there is no reference or entries to suggest these are 'Brokes' and as such the Respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the Notification and duty rebate. Shri A.K. Das Gupta who appeared on behalf of the Respondents pleaded that the respondent was under no legal obligation to follow the chapter 10 procedure and these papers had not reached the RG-1 point and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ^ goods claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing ^subject to the conditions imposed by the Collector by order in writing. In the instant case, the Respondent did not approach the authorities for waiver of duty. If the respondent had the intention of re-pulping the paper alleged to be defective paper, he should have kept proper records thereof. I, therefore, restore the order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, to the extent of charging the duty of ₹ 3,481.77 (Rs. 3,316.25 basic+165.52 spl). However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case where a penalty should be imposed on the respondents. I, therefore, uphold the order of the Collector (Appeals) q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
