1994 (2) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alid and the bonds and Bank Guarantee furnished be also set aside. 2.Shri Chafekar, Senior Advocate, with Shri Jain appearing for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are neither manufacturers nor even remotely directly or indirectly involved in manufacturing activities. As such they are beyond the purview of the Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder. The petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle CIF 889 and carries on business of transporting; while the petitioner No. 2 is a driver employed by the petitioner No. 1; the petitioner No. 3 is merely a helper working for the petitioner No. 4, who is a trader. The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 were served by the respondents with a show cause notice (Ann. `A') on 24-2-1993 and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ficiency or discrepancy in the contents as transporters of goods, they were not accountable or answerable for such discrepancy nor can they be called upon to explain any such deficiency in the documents. The seizure vehicle was wholly unjustifiable in face of the fact that the goods were removed under the authority and proper documentation. 5.It is not in dispute that the liability to excise duty and prepare proper documents as required under the law is that of the manufacturer. The allegation is made in the notices (Ann.`A' and `B') is to the effect that it was the manufacturer who had cleared the goods without proper gate pass. The petitioners are charged with abetment. The show cause notices itself reveal that the manufacturer had paid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oper cover of documents 8.Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in B.R. Sule v. Union of India reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 343, submitted that the present decision applies on all force to the case at hand. 9.Shri Neema, learned standing counsel appearing for the Union of India on the other hand inviting attention to Rule 173Q of the Rules and placing reliance on a decision in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 391 Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector contended that the notices issued and the action taken by the respondents were quite proper. 10.The case relied upon by the respondents is clearly distinguishable. From the material available on record and in the view of the statements made by the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X