9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e formalities and that they had neither obtained central excise licence, nor filed any declaration under Rule 174A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the officers seized 4414 pairs of footwear valued at Rs. 4,99,680/-. Further scrutiny of the appellants record revealed that the appellants had started their manufacturing activities since 1-3-1989 and prior to that a firm in the name of K.K. Exports Agra owned by Smt. Shama Kumari daughter-in-law of Shri Banshi Lal, prop. of the firm was engaged in the manufacture of footwears in the same premises since 1983 K.K. Exports was dissolved on 28-2-1989, but 12 invoices of K.K. Exports and other records maintained by them were recovered from the premises. On the basis of the records and investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit of Rs. 7.5 lacs in respect of SSI units. They, therefore, pleaded that no offence had been committed by them and they were not liable for any penalty. The Additional Collector arrived at the finding that the seized goods which were released to them against a bond on a provisional basis did not attract central excise duty since they had been exported and the relative export documents had been verified. He further held that the seized goods were liable for confiscation since they had been manufactured without entering them on the relevant record and on account of failure of the appellants to comply with the central excise formalities. The adjudicating authority while holding that the entire production was for export purpose and no duty wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants were manufacturing goods only for export purpose. He further entered that the order passed by the Collector imposing penalty on the appellants is sustainable since they had failed to file the necessary declaration and to comply with the provisions of Rule 174A and they had manufactured the goods without complying with the central excise formalities. 4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is an undisputed fact that the appellants were engaged in the production of goods entirely for export purpose. The goods which were seized and released provisionally to the appellants were also subsequently exported as observed by the Additional Collector in the impugned order. Under these circumstances I am of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
