9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975, as amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. This exemption was available when the goods were sent to another factory after observing the procedure laid down in Chapter-X of the Central Excise Rules. In this case, the consignee factory at Mandi Govindgarh had not obtained L-6 licence before the goods were sent to them and there was also no CT-2 certificate. On arrival of the goods at the destination, the consignee factory gave an intimation of receipt of the goods to the Central Excise Officer. A show cause notice dated 18-12-1982 was issued to the respondents asking them to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 22,800 /- shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d obtained L-6 licence and C.T. 2 certificate and that they would have been eligible for exemption of duty but for want of L-6 licence and CT-2 certificate. He refrained from demanding duty on the goods which would have been cleared under the procedure set out in Chapter-X of the Central Excise Rules. He, however, imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 on the respondents under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules for their failure to take proper care to ensure whether L-6 licence and C.T. -2 certificate were issued to their counterpart Mandi Govindgarh factory prior to despatch of the goods. Additional Collector absolved M/s. Industrial Oxygen Co. (P) Ltd., Mandi Govindgarh from the charge levelled against them. 3. In the appeal filed before us, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 28 (Tri.) = [1984 E.C.R. 1533 (CEGAT)][1] and (iv) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1987 (9) E.T.R. 310. Shri Khosla has also argued that there was no suppression of facts or misstatement on the part of the respondents and hence no penalty should have been imposed on them. For this argument he has relied on the decision reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.) = 1983 E.C.R. 1220-D (CEGAT) in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II v. M/s. Indopharma Pharmaceuticals Works. 6. We have considered the case records and the arguments of both sides. The question to be decided by us is whether the absence of L-6 licence and C.T.-2 cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apter-X procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This was an error and everybody accepts it to be so. But in our opinion this error is not serious enough to invalidate the entitlement of the oil to concessional assessment under the Notification. In the decision reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2370 (Tri.) = 1983 (2) E.T.R. 722, this Tribunal held that when the parts of refrigerators were cleared with full knowledge of the local Central Excise Officer, and they were received and acknowledged at the destination by the Central Excise Officer, there has been factual compliance with the conditions of the Notification No. 50/70-C.E. for claiming concessional rate of duty. In 1984 E.C.R. 1533 (CEGAT), the Tribunal held inter alia that The law has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
