9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also against the levy of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- as also levy of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/- in respect of the plant and machinery confiscated. Penal action has been taken as on stock taking there was a shortage of Acid Slurry to the extent of 100 kg. and Detergent Liquid to the extent of 2744 kg. and Soda Ash to the extent of 1210 kg. The learned lower authority after taking into consideration the formula for the manufacture of Washing Powder arrived at the conclusion that out of the raw materials found short the appellant would have manufactured 142200 kg. of washing powder and which would have been removed clandestinely without payment of duty. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has pleaded that in the stock taking it has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his course being adopted taking into consideration the pattern of production of the appellants in the previous year. 4. Inasmuch as therefore the shortage of raw materials is not contested we hold that the appellants had manufactured excisable goods and cleared the same without payment of duty. The question therefore in the context of the pleas made before us to be considered is as to whether the material found short have to be reckoned towards production of washing powder or this should be reckoned towards production of both washing powder and the other items which the appellants manufacture. Admittedly by value the appellants manufactured 6% of the washing powder in the previous year. In our view the appellant s plea merits consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been drawn and we therefore set aside the order of confiscation of plant and machinery. 5. In regard to the appeal of the Department, the grounds of appeal is that the appellants by reason of having manufactured the goods by using the brand name of another person they would not be eligible to the benefit of Notification 175/86. At the relevant time, according to the appellant Collector, the owner of the brand name was not eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification. 6. The learned JDR for the Department fairly concedes before us that in another proceedings the question of eligibility of the owner of the brand name to the benefit of Notification 175/86 is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Commissioner on a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
