Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1989 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (10) TMI 167 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to mis-declaration of counts of cotton yarn, suppression of production, imposition of central excise duty, and penalty under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. Mis-declaration of Counts: The appeal challenged the imposition of duty on cotton yarn due to mis-declaration of counts. The appellants were accused of manufacturing yarn of higher counts than declared, leading to duty demands. The Addl. Collector confirmed mis-declaration of counts but the appellants contested this. The appellants argued that the variation in counts was within permissible limits and no evidence was presented to prove deliberate mis-declaration. The tribunal found that the department's reliance on the ring frame register alone was insufficient to sustain the mis-declaration charge. The tribunal discharged the appellants from this allegation and dropped the duty demand of Rs. 20,822.85. Suppression of Production: The case also involved allegations of suppression of production of cotton yarn. The department claimed that a significant quantity of yarn was not accounted for in the statutory records, leading to duty demands and penalty. The appellants disputed this allegation, stating that the production figures were recorded at a later stage and no evidence of clandestine removal was presented. The tribunal noted that the allegation was based solely on the daily spinning and winding register, without corroborative evidence of excess production or removal. As a result, the tribunal found that the charge of suppression of production was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants were discharged from this charge, and the demand for Rs. 1,02,922.60 was dropped. Penalty Imposition: The tribunal concluded that the case did not warrant the imposition of a penalty. Therefore, the order imposing the penalty was set aside. Conclusion: After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the tribunal allowed the appeal on all counts, discharging the appellants from the allegations of mis-declaration of counts, suppression of production, and penalty imposition.
|