Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (1) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d waters falling under Item I-D of the Central Excise Tariff. By virtue of Notification No. 80/80, dated 19-6-1980, as amended from time to time, the appellant firm was availing the exemption from Central Excise duty on first clearance of the specified goods upto an aggregate value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs in a financial year and in excess thereof was liable to duty. During the checking of accounts of production and clearance, it was observed by the Central Excise officers that the appellant firm had cleared aerated waters valued at Rs. 7,47,773.16 under Gate Pass No. 220 dated 1-4-1981 to Gate Pass No. 472 dated 19-5-1981. On 19-5-1981, the appellant firm cleared the goods valued at Rs. 5,038.16 and continued to clear the goods valued Rs. 32,951.6 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re also busy in other factory work. 4. On receipt of the show-cause notice, the appellant firm instead of filing a detailed reply to the said show-cause notice, addressed a letter dated 13-1-1982 to the Assistant Collector reiterating the stand which was already taken by them in their aforesaid letter dated 3-6-1981. The appellant firm was again asked to file a reply to the show-cause notice making it clear that if no reply is received within the given time, their letter dated 13-1-1982 addressed to the Assistant Collector would be deemed to be the reply to the show-cause notice. The appellant firm was further reminded on 5-3-1982, but no reply was received from them. Hence, the learned Additional Collector decided the case on the basis o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t for any excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by him, or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or storage or any excisable goods without having applied for the licence required under Section 6 of the Act, or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules with intent to evade payment of duty. **** (Emphasis supplied) 6. It is a trite law that guilty knowledge is not a necessary ingredient for an offence under Rule 173-Q(1) (a), (b) or (c), whereas it would be necessary in a case covered by clause (d) as held by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. Ultramarine Pigments Limited, 1986 E.T.R. 59. In the instant case, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant firm a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cks had intimated the appellant firm that they were likely to exceed the full exemption limit and therefore they should make necessary arrangements. Despite this fact, the appellant firm did not make any necessary arrangements and effected clearance without payment of duty. The plea that due to the peak season for sale of aerated waters there were urgent requirements itself speaks a volume against the appellant firm. This plea itself indicates that the appellant firm removed the excisable goods in excess of the exemption limit with the full knowledge that they are committing an offence. Consequently, affirming the findings of the Adjudicating authority, we hold that the plea of the appellant firm is not sustainable either in law or on the f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e find that the appellant firm even before the issuance of the show-cause notice admitted that they had removed the goods in excess of the exemption limit without payment of duty on 19-5-1981 and 20-5-1981 vide their letter dated 3-6-1981 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Indore, and also deposited the duty on the goods so cleared on 22-5-1981. We think that under these circumstances the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) would meet the ends of justice. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The findings of the Adjudicating Authority are affirmed, but the penalty is reduced from Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) to Rs. 10.000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). - - TaxTMI - TMITax - C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates