9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision of Rule 191B. On a visit to the factory premises, the officers found a shortage of fibre and alleged that there was removal of the fibre. However, the appellants paid the amount of duty before issue of show-cause notice. The Department issued a show-cause notice and adjudicated the case. The Collector, in his adjudication order, imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1.0 lac. 3. Shri K.K. Anand, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that he is pressing only for the issue of imposition of penalty and is not pressing the point on demand of duty which has already been paid by the appellants even before the issue of show-cause notice. He submitted that the case was adjudicated when the Appeal was filed before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocedure and clearance of goods without gate passes is partly on account of the Department s own mis-understanding of the whole situation. In such a case, the extreme penalty of confiscation of plant and machinery is not called for, especially when it is not alleged in the original show-cause notice issued and such an order came to be passed only on the basis of an addendum issued during the course of de novo adjudication proceedings. A assailing the validity of the telegram, the learned Counsel submitted that the telegram was in the form of an intimation and not an addendum and therefore, invocation of Rule 209 for imposition of penalty was not valid in law. 4. The learned Counsel also submitted that when there is a specific provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions made as well as the case-law cited, I find that in the show-cause notice, contravention of Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is alleged. I also find that for penal action, Rule 173-O has been invoked. I also observe that there is no stipulation that penalty was to be imposed under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I also find that a telegram was sent to the appellants asking them as to why the penalty under Rule 209 for contravention of Rule 191B should not be imposed. I observe that this intimation is not in the form of an addendum to the show-cause notice. The admitted position was that the case was remanded for de novo adjudication. It was therefore, necessary for the adjudicating authority to keep within the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
