9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Central Excise, Guntur. 2. M/s. S.S. Laminates Private Limited are manufacturers of H.D.P.E. Fabrics (both Laminated and un-laminated) and H.D.P.E. Sacks (both laminated and un-laminated). On the basis of an intelligence, the Central Excise officers conducted investigation and found that M/s. S.S. Laminates were evading the Central Excise duties on Laminated H.D.P.E. fabrics by clearing them as un-laminated H.D.P.E. fabrics and were collecting the cost of L.D.P.E. material used for lamination and the lamination charges by raising a separate commercial invoice and the goods were being cleared as un-laminated H.D.P.E. Fabrics. A Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s. S.S. Laminates Private Limited and its Directors, demanding duty of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession or any intention to evade duty or contravention of Rules with intention to evade duty, penalty under Rule 173Q is not imposable. It was also pleaded that in the case of Rollsprint (Packaging) Limited v. CCE, Baroda reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 489 and in the case of H.T. Bhavnani Chemicals (P) Limited v. CCE, Baroda reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 502, it was held by the Tribunal that confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not to be normally invoked unless the party is a habitual offender. 4. On behalf of Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Director and Power of Attorney holder, it was pleaded that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has given a cryptic finding that the appellant was concerned with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of penalty on M/s. S.S. Laminates Private Limited. 6. Heard Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned JDR on behalf of Revenue. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Natarajan on behalf of both the appellants and also the submissions made by learned JDR, Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, on behalf of Revenue. We find that the adjudicating authority, in Para 8.10, have given a clear finding which is as under : 8.10 : In the instant case, M/s. SSL followed a set procedure of describing the goods cleared by them as unlaminated H.D.P.E. fabrics in the Central Excise Invoices/G.P.Is, raising two different commercial invoices - one for the cost of unlaminated H.D.P.E. fabric and another for the cost of L.D.P.E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the present case, duty exceeds one lakh rupees and, therefore, the order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine is correct in law. Since the fine imposed is very reasonable, we do not find any reason to interfere with it. 9. Regarding imposition of penalty under Rule 209A on Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, we find that there is no specific allegation in the Show Cause Notice as to how Shri M. Srinivasa Rao has contravened the Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the adjudicating order also, the Commissioner has given a finding in Para 8.14 that - Shri M. Srinivasa Rao is the power of attorney holder of M/s. S.S. Laminates and he alone is concerned with the day-to-day functioning of the unit. Hence, I find that Shri M. Srin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
