9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the daily production, report, and the variation with lot numbers on the packing slips in the gate pass and the packages intercepted on 12-10-1992 by the Central Excise officers. The order-in-original confirms the duty of Rs. 1,36,811.44 recoverable under Rule 9(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The seized man-made fabrics was held to be not liable for confiscation under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and so also the truck in which they were found carrying the goods. Penalty was not imposed on these respondents under Rules 173Q and 209A of Central Excise Rules under the above Act. 2. After the review of the above order-in-original by the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Regarding penalty and confiscation it is urged that as per the Central Excises and Salt Act entitled as levy and collection of duty, and since Section 9 covering offences of penalties comes thereunder, and so provisions of levy and collection include penalty also. The Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507 has quashed only Rules 9 and 173Q of Central Excise Rules relating to Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 whereas in this case Rule 52A is covered in the show cause notice which deals with delivery of goods and these invoices (earlier gate pass) are also provides for penalty independently, rule is violated. The same argument is mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under that Act or the other rules made thereunder. 6. From the above rules, prior to and subsequent to 1994 it is quite apparent that there was a lacuna in the Rules. Earlier Section 3 clause (3) of the Act 1957, 1978 till 1994 regarding power to impose penalty and apply Central Excise Act regarding the offences. In view of this clear picture, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The covering of Chapter II of the penalty provisions by itself is not sufficient as is made clear in the amendments. So under these circumstances there are no ground to disturb the impugned order. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507 holds field even to this date for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
