9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dyeing, bleaching, mercerising and printing of the said fabrics without the aid of power. The appellants were carrying out the process with the aid of power along declarations under Notification No. 13/92 stating that they would process powerloom fabrics falling under Chapter Headings 52 and 54 of CETA, 1985 with the aid of power (i.e. stentering, calendering, folding and bale packing) and claiming duty exemptions under Notifications 4/97 and 9/96 respectively declarations were filed accordingly. Similarly M/s. Alpic (India) had filed a declaration under the said Notification 13/92 (N.T.) that they will process powerloom fabrics without the aid of power and steam. The verification of the stock was conducted, samples were drawn and on the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Tribunal vide its order dtd. 11-6-02 remitted the matter back. The Commissioner (Appeals) after complying with the Tribunals order passed the present order now impugned before us ordering that : (i) The woven fabrics of 21274.50 LM confiscated stentered with the aid of power at the premises of M/s. Shiv Textiles, valued at Rs. 2,98,226.25 are leviable to Central Excise duty of Rs. 59,645.25 (BED Rs. 25,787.15 + AED Rs. 23,858.10). The confiscation of these seized goods (provisionally released on execution of Bond Bank Guarantee of Rs. 75,000/- and imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of confiscation is also legally proper and correct. (ii) In respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e registered with Central Excise Department and filing the price declarations and classifications list from time to time. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 are correctly applicable to the present case. (iv) As regards, the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Shri Shivkant Khetan, Partner of M/s. Shiv Textiles, it is now well settled by the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of CCE v. M/s. Suzuki Processors, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 639 (T), CCE v. M/s. A.K. Spintex, 2000 (127) E.L.T. 552 (T) that penalty if imposed on the firm, the same should not be imposed on the partner. Hence the same is set aside. (v) The complicity of M/s. Alpic (I) is proved in the aforesaid evasion of Central Excise duty and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial it is found and held as - (a) the appellants contention that vide a declaration dtd. 10-4-98 claiming benefit of notification Nos. 4/97 and 9/96. They have categorically mentioned that the process of stentering, felt calendering, folding and bale packing to be carried out with the aid of power and steam. This submission of the appellant does not appear to have been considered though it has been recorded by the Commissioner. Commissioner is finding that the fabrics were cleared after stentering with the aid of power both by i.e. M/s. Alpic (I) Ltd. and M/s. Shiv Textiles in contravention of the provisions of the Act of the rules and after considering the charge as alleged in the show cause notice, he confirmed the order now impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
