9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter referred to as the 'Rules', and demanding excise duty from the other two appellants at the Tariff rate and imposing on each of the other appellants a sum of Rs. 1,000 as penalty under Rule 210 of the Rules. 2. The Preventive Officer of the Central Excise Department at Kovilpatti Division checked the matches found in the possession of appellant M/s. Capital Match Co. at New Road, Kovilpatti, on 2-11-1985 and effected seizure of matches manufactured by the other appellants and others, with which I am not concerned in the present appeals, under a mazhar as per law. The authorities effected seizure of the matches because the match boxes did not contain 50 sticks in terms of Rule 63 of the Rules. The seized match boxes were provisionall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d more so to levy duty at a higher rate. The learned counsel also assailed the legality of the penalty imposed on them. 4. Heard Shri Bhatia, the learned Senior D.R. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. Appellant M/s. Capital Match Co., according to the impugned order, is engaged in match trade on "consignment sales on commission basis". The charge is that this was in contravention of Rule 231 of the Rules. Rule 231 states that matches found in the possession of any dealer or retailer (emphasis supplied) not being stamped, wrapped or labelled as prescribed or the container bears any other mark or appearance of having been opened or tampered with shall be liable to confiscation and such dealer or retailer shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 5,000 (Rs. Five thousand) and I order accordingly. 6. In respect of the two other appellants it is not disputed before me that the match boxes contained less than 50 matches and, therefore, the concessional benefit in terms of Notification 22/82, referred to supra, is not applicable. It is settled proposition of law that in the matter of construction of an exemption notification there is no scope for intendment and a literal construction will have to be adopted. The concessional notification not being applicable to the other two appellants in the aforesaid circumstances the order of the Collector in demanding duty at the Tariff rate is sustainable in law. I, therefore, confirm this finding of the Collector under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
