1981 (7) TMI 238 - Board - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged non-payment of Central Excise duty on goods falling under different Tariff Items.
2. Clubbing of turnover of multiple units owned by a corporation to determine duty liability.
3. Alleged contraventions of Central Excise Rules regarding maintenance of records and gate passes.
4. Claim of time-barred demands under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules.
5. Dispute regarding dutiability of goods and non-consideration of submissions by the Collector.
6. Alleged procedural lapses and penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The appeal involved allegations of non-payment of Central Excise duty on goods classified under Tariff Items 68 and 40. The appellant contended that they presumed exemption due to turnover limits. The Central Excise Officers audited the factory and found discrepancies in duty payment on goods valuing certain amounts.

2. The issue of clubbing turnover of multiple units owned by a corporation was raised to determine if the turnover limit for duty exemption had been crossed. The appellant argued that the unit in question was independent without control by the corporation, which only assisted in administration due to financial involvement.

3. Allegations of contraventions of Central Excise Rules were made, including not maintaining proper accounts, continued use of outdated gate pass book, and lack of proper recording on gate passes. The appellant argued that these were minor procedural lapses not warranting penal action.

4. The appellant claimed that the demands were time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules due to no clandestine activities. They contended that they had informed the authorities about other units manufacturing excisable goods, invoking the time limit provision.

5. Disputes arose regarding the dutiability of goods and non-consideration of submissions by the Collector. The Board found that the Department failed to examine the excisability of goods classified under Tariff Item 68 as directed, leading to the application of Rule 10(1) instead of Rule 9(2) for time-barring demands.

6. Regarding alleged procedural lapses and penalty imposition, the Board held that there was no clandestine activity, and the contraventions were minor. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the Collector was remitted in full, as there was no sufficient cause for penal action against the appellants. The Collector was directed to consider all submissions on excisability of goods and the time-bar aspect under Rule 10(1) for further decisions.