1991 (1) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the computerised daily production statement.
2. Adjudication process and timing of evidence submission.
3. Allegation of goods meant for clandestine removal.
4. Relevance of prior case law.
5. Stage of RG-1 entry for motor vehicles.
6. Tribunal's observation on precise accountal at each production stage.
7. Validity of O.K. stickers without signatures.
8. Timeliness of computerised daily production statement submission.
9. Capability of scooters for clandestine removal.
10. Tribunal's consideration of cited case laws.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Correctness of the computerised daily production statement:
The applicants contended that the 603 scooters were correctly reflected in the computerised daily production statement and were awaiting inspection and quality control checks. However, the Collector noted that the computerised daily production statement was not filed before the departmental officers on 31-07-1985, leading to the Tribunal confirming this order without rectification.

2. Adjudication process and timing of evidence submission:
The applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Collector was right to ignore the documentary evidence relating to 603 scooters as belated. They claimed that no proper exercise of adjudication was done. The Tribunal found that the points raised were in the nature of a review of its earlier order and dismissed the application for rectification of mistakes (R.O.M.).

3. Allegation of goods meant for clandestine removal:
The Tribunal and the Collector shared the view that the goods were meant for clandestine removal. The applicants argued that motor vehicles could not be removed clandestinely, but this was not accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Relevance of prior case law:
The applicants cited the decision in M/s. Raza Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, which was not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that it had considered similar case laws and observed that the case laws cited were in respect of viewing technical offenses leniently.

5. Stage of RG-1 entry for motor vehicles:
The applicants argued that the Collector's approach regarding the RG-1 stage was wrong, referencing the Central Excise Law Guide by R.K. Jain, which states that for motor vehicles, the RG-1 stage is "as soon as it is rolled off the assembly line." The Tribunal noted no controversy on the RG-1 stage and found that the applicants failed to make entries in the RG-1 register even after the O.K. stickers were affixed.

6. Tribunal's observation on precise accountal at each production stage:
The Tribunal observed that the manufacture of scooters requires precise and proper accountal at each stage of production. The applicants argued that this was neither practicable nor statutorily required. The Tribunal based its observation on the applicants' own documentation and internal procedures for maintaining accounts at each production stage.

7. Validity of O.K. stickers without signatures:
The applicants contended that the O.K. stickers affixed on the 603 scooters did not bear any signature or initial of the quality control staff, making them unfit for entry in the RG-1 register. The Tribunal found that this point was not raised before the lower authority and thus could not be considered as a fresh ground.

8. Timeliness of computerised daily production statement submission:
The Collector rejected the computerised daily production statement as it was produced belatedly. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the applicants had not disclosed the preparation of the computerised daily production report during the initial verification on 2-8-1985.

9. Capability of scooters for clandestine removal:
The applicants argued that scooters could not be clandestinely removed. The Tribunal noted that the purpose of the accounting system is to ensure proper accountal of manufactured goods, and the applicants failed to produce sufficient proof of such accountal.

10. Tribunal's consideration of cited case laws:
The applicants argued that the Tribunal should have considered the decisions cited, including Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others. The Tribunal noted that it had considered similar decisions and found no denial of justice in not taking note of every identical case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application for rectification of mistakes, finding no apparent error. It also dismissed the reference application, concluding that the applicants had not raised any question of law and had misquoted facts. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not review its own orders and found the applicants' grievances not conducive to their taste.

← Previous Next →