9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngaged in the manufacture of woollen knitted hosiery cloth in tubular form from woollen yarn with circular knitting machines. The Excise Officers also found some woollen yarn and woollen jerseys in semi-finished condition. On visual examination, the woollen yarn appeared to be containing more than one sixth by weight of nylon contents, classifiable under Tariff Item 18-B(ii). Sh. Jagdish Rai, proprietor of the factory, stated that the yarn was a blended yarn but he did not know its composition. He was not able to produce any bill/ voucher or Central Excise gate pass covering the yarn in question. The woollen yarn/woollen jerseys in semi-finished condition and woollen knitted hosiery cloth were seized in the reasonable belief that the yarn w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before adjudication, he appropriated bond amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards redemption fine. In addition, he confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 15,705/- and Rs. 1,48,079.25 P and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. Hence this appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Mohinderjeet Singh, learned Advocate and Shri M.M. Mathur, learned JCDR. Shri Mathur fairly concedes that duty liability on the seized goods cannot be fastened upon the appellants who are admittedly not manufacturers of the yarn and that penalty, for the same reason, cannot be imposed in terms of the relevant rules upon the appellants. He however, contends that Rule 173-Q is attracted to the facts of the case as the appellants were not able to produce any bills/vouchers, Gate passes in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory and once the department has been able to establish that the goods were cleared without payment of duty, the liability to confiscation arises (See Final Order No. 691/94-NRB, dated 27-7-1994 in the case of M/s. Universal Cables Ltd. v. C.C.E. Meerut). 7. The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Decent Dyeing Co. [1990 (45) E.L.T. 201] relied upon by the learned Counsel does not advance the case of the appellants on this issue, as the Court was not seized of the first question of liability of goods seized from job workers to confiscation on the ground of removal of acrylic yarn manufactured without payment of duty and was only determining duty liability of buyer/job worker. The Supreme Court held that the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
