9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction in March, 1976. During a visit to the factory premises by the Central Excise officers on 6-2-1981, (glass) chatons valued at ₹ 6,612.50 were sized as excisable under Tariff Item 23A of the first Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter C.E.T ). In the Show Cause Notice issued in June, 1981, the appellants were asked to show cause why duty amounting to ₹ 4,42,821.51 payable on goods cleared since 1975-76 should not be demanded from them. 4. The appellants claimed before the Collector that the chatons were nothing but (glass) beads and therefore exempted from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 50/61-C.E., dated 1-3-1961. They further claimed that even otherwise the chatons made from duty pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants have submitted, the chatons were exempt from Central Excise duty under Notification Nos. 185/62-C.E., dated 3-11-1962 and 64/79-C.E., dated 1-3 1979. These goods were also covered under the exemption provided by Notification. No 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 (as amended, from time to time). 9. Moreover, the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, in his Trade Notice 18-C.E./80 (Glass and Glassware) dated 12-2-1980 had accepted that any glassware classifiable under Item 23A (4) CET, If manufactured from other articles of glass (glassware) which have already paid duty under the same tariff item 23A(4) would not be again liable to excise under the said Tariff Item . Therefore, chatons, classifiable under the same Tariff Item a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om payment of duty and no Central Excise licence was required for manufacture of glass chatons. 13. In view of these submissions the appellants have contended that the order of confiscation of the seized chatons and imposition of penalty for non-payment of duty and non-observance of Central Excise procedure was illegal and unjust as the appellants had acted on a bona fide belief that their goods were exempt from central excise duty. 14. The Board has carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions made by the appellants in the written memorandum of appeal and during the course of personal hearing before it. 15. The Board, does not agree with the appellant s contention that glass chatons are identifiable as glass beads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the glass rods. The Collector had decided this point on mere presumption. The benefit of doubt, in the absence of evidence to the contrary should therefore go in favour of the appellants. The benefit under Notification No. 71/78 (as amended) would be applicable for the subsequent period in view of the aggregate value of clearance of glass chatons during the financial years in issue. 20. The Board having considered the points in submission and having reached the conclusion that at no point of time of manufacture the goods produced by the appellants were dutiable, sets aside the demand for duty made in the impugned order. 21. The Board also accordingly sets aside the order of confiscation, and revokes the penalty imposed on the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
