1990 (3) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Seizure and confiscation of pressure cookers by Central Excise Officers.
- Applicability of duty on pressure cookers manufactured by the appellants.
- Imposition of penalty and fine by the Additional Collector.

Analysis:
The case involved the seizure of 170 pressure cookers by Central Excise Officers from the factory of the appellants, valued at Rs. 22,539.30. The Additional Collector held that the pressure cookers were not accounted for in the register and were liable for confiscation. The goods were provisionally released to the appellants on a bond, but they failed to produce the cookers during adjudication. Consequently, the security amount was appropriated, and a penalty of Rs. 8,000 was imposed under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

The main argument presented by the appellants was that they did not manufacture the weights and vent pipes of the pressure cookers but procured them from the market and supplied them with the cookers. They contended that without these parts, a pressure cooker is incomplete, and therefore, no duty should be levied under Item 54 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the pressure cooker was complete even without these parts, citing a previous Tribunal decision and ISI certification.

Upon considering the arguments and records, the Tribunal analyzed the Central Excise Tariff Item 54, which defines pressure cookers as enclosed vessels capable of maintaining steam pressure. The Tribunal noted that while weights and vent pipes are essential for cooking, the product manufactured by the appellants still fell within the Tariff entry. The Additional Collector's mention of ISI testing and marking further supported the completeness of the pressure cookers. Drawing an analogy from a previous decision, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants' product was indeed a pressure cooker under the Tariff.

Regarding the penalty imposed, the Tribunal found the amount excessive given the value of the seized goods. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 2,000, while upholding the fine of Rs. 4,600. With these modifications, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.