9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inspectors of Central Excise visited the factory premises of M/s. Ultra Marine and Pigments Ltd., respondents herein, and verified the stock and accounts. They noticed that 19 different items, details of which are set out in the order of the Deputy Collector (Gold) dated 12-5-1983 in C. No. V/15AA/15/1/82 Cx. Adj II, were kept in the working hall of the factory in a fully packed condition and ready for dispatch and that they had not been accounted for in the statutory R.G. 1 account. Examination of some of the packages and cartons showed that some of the goods had been packed in 1/82, 4/82, 6/82, 8/82 and 12/82; and in some cases packing slips were found with dates of packing as 4-9-1982, 24-11-1982 and 9-10-1982. The goods were seized for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 173(b) and (d) vide Order C. No. V/15AA/15/1/82 CX Adj II dated 12.5.1983 (Annexure B). When the matter was taken up in appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) found that there had been a practice of entering the goods manufactured in the R.G. 1 account at the point of their storage in the bonded storeroom, the practice of which the Department was aware and perhaps allowed to continue because the Department was not able to determine the R.G. 1 stage for organic surface-active agents. Hence, he held that the respondents had not contravened Rule 173G(4) with any willful intention to evade payment of duty. He also felt that Rules 173G(4) and 53 should not have been invoked simultaneously and so too with Rules 173Q and 226. He fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court. 6. Regarding Question 5 - This is dealt with in Para 21 of the order of the Tribunal. In the light of what we have observed in regard to the Questions 1, 2 and 3 above, this question also does not merit reference to the High Court. 7. Regarding Question 6 - This is more in the nature of an argument than a question of law which would not merit reference to the High Court. 8. Regarding Question 8 - This is a question of fact derivable from the material on record and hence is not referable. 9. Regarding Question 9 - Charges under Rule 173Q(1) and other sub-sections of that Rule are different in character. This too s in the nature of an argument and hence is not referable to the High Court. 10. Regarding Question 1C - This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
