9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hased the Rubber Mixing Mill from M/s. Sohal Engineering Works, Bombay vide the appellants purchase order dated 30-8-1974. As per this order, duty of Central Excise was to be paid by the supplier. The appellants received the rubber mill in question under the supplier s gate pass dated 8-9-1982 and this showed that the suppliers had paid the central excise duty amounting to Rs. 70,000/- on the aforesaid Mill. The invoice of M/s. Sohal Engineering Works dated 2-9-1982 also showed this amount of central excise duty on the Mill. The appellants paid the total price to M/s. Sohal Engineering Works for the Rubber Mixing Mill which was inclusive of this Central Excise duty. The Mill was installed in their factory at Kalamassery, in Kerala. Thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t his reliance on Section 110 of the Customs Act in the aforesaid findings was not proper, as the show cause notice did not adduce this ground and hence the appellants did not have an opportunity of showing cause against it. All the same, under Section 110 of the Customs Act, only goods would be seized which are liable to confiscation, and this argument will still hold good. The Collector s order admitted that the machinery had been installed in the factory of M/s. Premier Tyres Ltd. and hence the same was attached to the ground and had become part of the immovable property, and Section 110 of the Customs Act was not attracted. The Advocate relied on the various decisions in this behalf to urge that goods cannot include immovable property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of G.M. Deshi - 1978-ELT-J 578 to show that the goods liable to confiscation could be seized from the purchaser and that the jurisdiction to hold enquiry in respect of goods removed without payment of duty was of the central excise officer who held the jurisdiction over the place of manufacture where the offence of non-payment of duty was committed. Since it was not disputed that Rubber Mill Machinery had not paid duty the same was liable to confiscation in the hand of the purchaser and accordingly, the Collector s order was correct. He, therefore, supported the decision of the Collector. 4. I have examined the appellants arguments and the respondent s pleas. Under Rule 9 and Rule 173Q excisable goods are liable to confiscation. Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale;" It is also pertinent to observe that Section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act takes note of this situation. Under it the Collector of Central Excise is empowered to confiscate anything without limit under sub-section (a) thereof while sub-section (2) empowers the Asstt. Collector to confiscate the goods not exceeding Rs. 500/- in value. It is thus very clear that when the confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery, materials etc. is to be empowered under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Collector can adjudge confiscation in terms of Section 33(a) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
