9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent appeal. 2. Factual Backdrops : The appellants are Khandsari Sugar manufacturers and working under the Special Procedure provided in Chapter V/C-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is alleged that during a surprise visit of the appellant Factory on 20-1-1982, the Central Preventive Officers found the appellants manufacturing khandsari sugar by way of clandestine operation of the Centrifugal. It was also found that for the purpose of clandestine operation of the Centrifugal, they broke open the official seal affixed on the Centrifugal. It was further found that the appellants were manufacturing khandsari sugar without discharging their duty liability for the 3rd week of January, 1982. Statement of Shri Rajpal Singh was also record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) refused to interfere. 3. I have heard Shri R.P. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri T.H.K. Ghauri, learned S.D.R. for the respondent. 4. Shri R.P. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the show cause notice Rules 92A and 226 were quoted and since the said Rule 92A in Chapter V/C-I does not provide for imposition of a compounded duty the order demanding the duty was bad in law. In reply, Shri T.H.K. Ghauri, learned SDR submitted that all the facts constituting the contravention and the demand of compounded duty were mentioned in the show cause notice and therefore wrong mention of Section or Rule in the show cause notice would not render the demand of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was their unauthorised production of khandsari sugar during the 3rd week of January, 1982. To substantiate his contention, he cited the judgment rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s. B.K. Gupta Khandsari Sugar Mills v. U.O.I., 1983 E.L.T. 889. A perusal of the said decision would show that the said decision applies to the present case on all fours. In that, similar argument was advanced. Agreeing with the said argument the case was remanded to determine the duty. The relevant portion may be extracted as below :- As regards the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the Collector nor any of the higher authorities have factually determined the date from which the petitioner installed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case and particularly in the absence of any extenuating circumstances for operating the Centrifugal after breaking open the official seal affixed on the Centrifugal. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussion, confiscation of Khandsari sugar with an option to redeem the same on payment of a Redemption Fine of Rs. 100/- and the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. are upheld. That part of the order which relates to the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 6,893.00 for the 3rd week of January, 1982 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Customs, Moradabad to work out the actual amount of production of Khandsari sugar as also the amount of removal from the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
