9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposing personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on appellant M/s. Krishna Silk Mills (Appeal No. E/27/88-Bom.) and of Rs. 20,000/- on appellant M/s. Silk India Corporation (Appeal No. E/28/88-Bom.) under the same Rules. 2. On the search carried out at the premises of the appellants on 28-5-1985, 24819 L. Mtrs of processed MMF was recovered for which no excise payment documents were available. The appellants declared that they used to procure grey MMF from open market and get them processed through three processing houses, namely M/s. Navjeevan Synthetics, I.C. Ganghi and Silver Dyeing which used to return processed fabrics under their challans mentioning therein, the numbers of Gate Passes. The records were reportedly lying at their Bombay off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Houses and hence they cannot be branded as manufacturers and that the procedural formalities laid down under Central Excises Act and Rules, have to be complied with by the persons who manufacture the excisable goods and when the same has been duly complied with, the appellants cannot be held any way liable and in support of her contention, she refers to the decision in Metal Box India Ltd. v. Collector, 1986 (23) E.L.T. 187 (Tri.), Collector v. Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 261 (Tri.) and Apex Electricals v. U.O.I. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 413 (Guj.). She further pleads that, the fabrics found from the appellants were in cut to the required size and the allegation as to their non-duty paid nature is based merely on conjecture, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocess houses, the duty, which is against the goods is recoverable and the appellants who are merchants manufacturers cannot disown the duty liability when the process houses deny having processed these goods. 5. Considering the submissions made, and going through the records and taking up first the validity of the order in so far as the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty is concerned, the decision of Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills, (supra) and the one of North Regional Bench in Re : Syntex Processors (supra) hold that it is not permissible to order confiscation and impose penalty in recovery of the Excise duty under Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The decision of Gujarat High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, whereas other two have pleaded that whichever goods were processed by them were despatched under valid documents. The appellants have not provided any explanation against the plea of I.C. Gandhi Dyeing and have not co-related the seized goods with any duty paying documents supplied to them by other two processing houses. With no co-relation made by the parties who are supposed to have account for the same, it has to be concluded that the seized goods have not suffered duty. Even assuming that because of further processing by the appellants, by way of cutting them into pieces they may not be able to perfectly co-relate the goods, they could by production of some convincing evidence establish with reasonable certainty that the goods seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
