9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that the duty amount involved is at Rs. 7,31,700/- but it was paid and there is a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The period involved is August, 1992 to January, 1993 and the show cause notice is dated 2nd March, 1993. He argued that imposition of penalty is ab initio illegal as there is no mention in the show cause notice as to the imposition of penalty. He pleaded that penalty proceedings are quasi criminal proceedings and as such when there is no mention of the leviability of the penalty in the show cause notice, the penalty cannot be imposed. Now coming to the levy of duty the learned Advocate argued that the adjudicating authority has included the value of the optional accessories, namely, Crevice nozzle, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent, relied on the order passed by the Collector. She drew the attention of the Bench to page 1 and 2 of the order in original. She laid special emphasis on the following: The party were also exporting the Vacuum Cleaner wherein they included the value of the OAS in the export value of the goods. However, in the clearance for home consumption the party excluded the cost of the OAS. The cost of individual items of the OAS, raised in the separate invoices and included in the export value of the unit by the party are as under:- Sl. No. Description of OAS Price Optional Accessories 1. Upholstry Nozzle @Rs. 75.00 2. Crevice Nozzle @R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise, Pune v. Thermax (P) Ltd. - reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 247. 3. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T 763 (Tri.). 3. She further argued that the judgments relied by the learned Advocate have been duly discussed by the adjudicating authority in his order. She pleaded that Section 11A has been duly mentioned in the show cause notice and fairly stated that there is no mention in the show cause notice about the imposition of penalty. She further stated that if any corrigendum has been issued, the same should have been in the file. As there is nothing on record, she pleaded for the rejection of the stay application. 3A. The learned Advocate, in reply, pleaded that no corrigendum has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Just as aviation petrol is not a part of the aeroplane nor diesel is a part of a bus in the same way, ribbon is not a part of the typewriter though it may not be possible to type out any matter without it. Mrs. C.G. Lal, learned SDR has palced heavy reliance in the case of Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 566 (SC) Para Nos. 3 4 which are relevant, are reproduced below: * * * * * Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T 763 has upheld the judgment of the Tribunal which is reproduced below :- * * * * * Again, in the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Department all the three assemblies were part of the power-driven pump. According to the petitioners, only the bowl assembly which housed the impellers, comprised the power driven pump , and the column assembly, through which water or liquid would go up, and the discharge head assembly, through which water or liquid is discharged and passed on to the distribution system, were merely accessories of the pump. Evidence as to the trade understanding was produced by the petitioners, in the shape of one Lalchandani, who was a technically qualified man as well as an industrialist. The Court took note of the definition of the term accessories as adopted by the Supreme Court in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (37 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. AIR 1961 SC 609, Explained; (1963) 48 ITR 324 (All.) and (1966) 59 ITR 135 (All.), Overruled. 6. During the course of arguments the learned Advocate had made an offer for furnishing a bank guarantee in case the bench is not inclined to grant stay. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (SC), in para 13 had held as under :- * * * * * 7. In view of the above discussions and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that in case the appellants are desired to deposit the total duty amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
