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

1988 (7) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the Central Excise officers on a search of the appellants factory, found that they had manufactured 1000 meters of PVC Leather cloth and they were also found to be in possession of grey fabrics measuring 551812.1 meters valued at Rs. 17,25,120/-. These goods were seized. After further investigation, the appellants were charged with having suppressed the production of PVC leather cloth and removed the same clandestinely. The total suppression of production indicated in the Show Cause Notice is 1,94,084 meters. The Director of Publications who was invested with the powers of Collector by notification under the Central Excise Act, adjudicated the case and demanded duty of Rs. 7,79,745/- in respect of clandestine removals during the period .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as also from a very small quantity of rejected and defective material. The entire sample book being maintained by M/s. Modern Leather Cloth Co. has been taken away by the officers. The samples were taken for the purpose of obtaining the report of the Chemical Examiner. Till date we have not been furnished a copy of the chemical examiner report of the samples drawn. We request to you that we may be supplied with a copy of the same at an early date. This is because of the fact that the chemical examiners report would confirm that the content of the cotton fabrics is much less than 50%. By weight in the finished product. It has been held by the CEGAT consistently in a number of cases that where the cotton fabric constitute less than 50% by wei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xemption upto Rs. 30 lakhs under Notification No. 182/82. 4. Regarding financial position of the appellants, he pleaded that the appellants had earned a modest gross profit of Rs. 1,81,149.53 P. and a net profit of Rs. 88,055.75 P. in the year ending 31-3-1987 and the assets of the partners were also modest. In this connection, he drew our attention to the assessment order in respect of Kishan Arora dated 21-5-1987 under Section 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 wherein his taxable income has been shown as Rs. 94,480/- and tax liability of Rs. 27,042/-. He pleaded that since he had a good prima-facie case and also that the financial position of the appellants was not so sound, the application as prayed for, may be allowed. 5. The Learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e than 40 per cent by weight of cotton and 50 per cent or more by weight of non-cellulosic fibres or yarn or both . The Learned Director (Pub) has taken note of their request for testing of the material but has disposed of the same by observing as under in his order - The contention made in reply to the show cause notice as to whether the goods in question are assessable under Tariff Item 68 or Tariff Item 19 was not taken up by the party at any time later when the two opportunities of personal hearings were granted . 7. We observe that the appellants had gone on record for testing of the goods for determination of the classification of goods under Tariff Item 68 or 19 depending upon the predominance of the plastic material or cotto .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o be heard further, more so when on the previous hearing on 6-7-1987, it was decided to hear them further. The adjudicating authority was in error in presuming that the appellants were not interested in further hearing without ascertaining the position from the appellants in this regard. The appellants as it is have made a grievance of this before us and obviously the order has been passed without complying with the requirement of hearing as by the principles of natural justice. 10. The Learned Departmental Representative for the Department had no defence to make in this regard and in fact suggested that the matter may be remanded for de-novo adjudication. 11. We observe therefore, that the impugned order initiated is bad in law on ac .....

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