1981 (6) TMI 125 - Board - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Enforcement of bond for provisional release of goods
2. Central Excise duty amount and penalty imposition
3. Valuation of goods for duty calculation
4. Allegations of clandestine clearance and non-compliance with Central Excise Rules

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the Collector of Central Excise's orders enforcing a bond for Rs. 20,000 for provisional release of seized goods, demanding Rs. 53,855.40 as Central Excise duty, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 for contraventions of the Central Excise Act and Rules. The appellants argued that they were solely engaged in exporting garments, and the valuation of goods by the Collector was incorrect as it included non-dutiable items like jackets and did not account for discounts given. They contended that the goods were meant for export, and thus, the bond enforcement was unjustified.

2. The appellants explained their export-focused business model and the expansion of their storage facilities to the Central Excise authorities. They cited a Supreme Court judgment to argue against penalties for technical contraventions. They also challenged the confiscation of goods on the grounds that they were needed for export, questioning the Collector's reasoning.

3. Regarding local sales, the appellants claimed they were exempt from duty as their clearances were below Rs. 5 lakhs, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. They disputed the valuation of goods for duty calculation, asserting that the inclusion of jackets and the treatment of free pieces in sales discounts were incorrect. They argued that with proper allowances, their total sales value would fall below the exemption limit.

4. The Board found merit in the appellant's contentions, noting that the inclusion of jackets in dutiable value was incorrect, and discounts given should not be added to the sales value for duty calculation. The Board agreed that after accounting for non-dutiable items and discounts, the total sales value remained below the exemption limit. Considering the appellants' export-oriented business and the circumstances of the sales in question, the Board set aside the Collector's orders, ruling in favor of the appellants. The Board viewed the alleged contraventions leniently, given the appellants' export focus and the circumstances of the sales.