1994 (7) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Director General of Anti-Evasion confiscating a plain paper photo-copying machine valued at Rs. 17,800/- purchased by the applicants herein from M/s. Electro Photomax, who had cleared the same without payment of duty, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 100/- 2. Shri N. Khaitan, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e ld. Counsel that the provisions of Rule 52A are not attracted in this case. However, Rule 173Q under which the machine has been confiscated is applicable as the liability to confiscation under this Rule attaches to these goods on which the duty has not been paid by a producer/purchaser/warehouse licensee. The goods become tainted due to non-payment of duty at the time of removal from the factory .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Excises Salt Act, 1944, and the Tribunal held that the applicants cannot be said to [be] the manufactuer and liable to pay the duty in the absence of proof that he got the goods manufactured by others under his direction and control. It was in those circumstances that the Tribunal held that the applicant was not guilty of contravention of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. In the case o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X