1981 (1) TMI 252 - Board - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty on the manufacture and removal of aluminium circles.
2. Seizure of aluminium circles by Central Excise Officers.
3. Appeal against the order of the Dy. Collector of Central Excise.
4. Show cause notice issued to the appellants.
5. Adjudication proceedings before the Collector.
6. Analysis of samples by the National Test House.
7. Appeal before the Board against the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Collector.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations of evading Central Excise duty on the manufacture and removal of aluminium circles exceeding 1.22 m.m. thickness without payment. The Central Excise Officers seized aluminium circles during a factory visit, leading to the demand for duty and penal action by the Dy. Collector of Central Excise.

2. The appellants appealed against the Dy. Collector's order, which was quashed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued to the appellants, initiating adjudication proceedings before the Collector.

3. During the adjudication proceedings, the appellants contended that the seized samples were not representative, emphasizing a "Deep Drawing Process" that affected the thickness of the circles. Samples were sent to the National Test House (NTH) for analysis, which revealed varying thickness due to the manufacturing process.

4. The Collector determined the duty demand for a specific period, considering the appellants' contentions and previous orders. The duty was demanded on the aluminium circles, and a significant penalty was imposed under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

5. The appellants appealed to the Board, presenting arguments supported by experiments and certificates to demonstrate the variation in thickness due to manufacturing processes. They highlighted discrepancies in the Collector's findings and the lack of concrete evidence to sustain the duty demand.

6. The Board acknowledged the appellants' submissions regarding the manufacturing process's impact on thickness and criticized the Collector's reliance on presumptions without substantial evidence. Consequently, the Board allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand and the imposed penalty.

7. The Board expressed concern over the excessive penalty imposed, emphasizing the need for caution and circumspection in applying Rule 173-Q. The penalty was deemed unwarranted and overturned, leading to the success of the appeal in full.