9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules) and why a quantity of 2,23,645 pieces of P.P. Caps seized from them should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q-(1) and why penalty should not be imposed on them. On completion of adjudication proceedings the Collector held that the seized goods were liable to confiscation under Rule 173-Q but in their absence (they having been released against a bond), he forfeited a sum of ₹ 500/- from the security deposit; he also ordered recovery of Central Excise duty at the appropriate rate on 59,06,859 pieces of P.P. Caps under Rule 9(2) as it existed during the material period. However, he did not impose any penalty on the appellants. On appeal, the Central Board of Excise Customs held that the Collector s orders demanding duty on the goods as P.P. Caps under Item No. 42 of the CET were correct and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order of the Board that the appellants had preferred a Revision Application before the Central Government which has come to this Tribunal on transfer under the provisions of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it. 2. The contention of the appellants, in so far as the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cap had to be torn open. In the circumstances the Collector held that the subject goods were P.P. Caps. The Board, in its Order-in-Appeal, also held that the subject caps were used for keeping the lid otherwise fixed on the drums in position and also for the purpose of identification of the product with reference to embossing or painting on such caps. Nevertheless, considering the manner in which the cap was used, the object of making the contents pilferproof was also achieved. It was not necessary that such caps should be fixed on the opening of a container only with the help of a thread. The fact that the subject tab seals were pressure sealed would not disqualify them from being classified as pilferproof caps. Insofar as the contention that other manufacturers of similar caps were not being charged to duty, the Board held that the contention has not been substantiated and that in any case even if it were so, it could not justify the appellants from avoiding the payment of duty. 4. In the Memorandum of Revision Application (Appeal) the grounds traversed are substantially the same as those adduced before the lower authorities. During the hearing of the appeals Shri H.C. Jain, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India, Bombay and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bombay, copies of which are available in the file at pp. 103 to 108 in which the goods have been described as tab seal or cap seal . These documents would show that the subject goods were known in the trade as cap seals or tab seals and not as P.P. Caps . It would also be seen from the order of the Indian Oil Corporation that there was no excise duty on finished cap seals. It was further submitted that such seals could, by themselves, never act as pilferproof caps. He also referred to IS : 784 - laying down specification for Screwed Closures for Drums. 6. Turning next to the question whether, even assuming that the goods were P.P. Caps, the Department was not estopped from raising demands in respect of the past periods and further whether the demand raised against the appellants was not time-barred. Shri Jain referred to the adjudication proceedings held by the Collector and, in particular, to the cross examination of Shri Sahasrabuddhe and to the correspondence which the appellants had with the Central Excise authorities on the subject of excisability of the subject goods as pilferproof caps. In this correspondence, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy and easy access to the contents in the container or drum over which the cap seal or tab seal is affixed. The cap seal contains a gasket type of lining. The fact that the seal does not have threads in them and that, therefore, they cannot be screwed on to the lids or closure of the drum would not, in our opinion, make any difference to the position that they do act as a check or barrier against ready or easy access to the contents. Further, if someone were to attempt to reach the contents, he would have to perforce remove the cap seal and for this purpose he would have to grip its ears and tear across the diameter and, in the process, the remaining portion of the cap seal would fall into 2 pieces. In the result, the cap seal would be destroyed and would not be re-usable. 11. Having regard to this admitted position, there is no doubt as to the true function of the cap seal, i.e. to act as a check or barrier against pilferage. Since Item No. 42 of the CET does not contain a built-in definition of the expression pilferproof cap , we have to go by the plain meaning of the expression and in this light there is no denying that the subject cap seals are nothing but pilferproof caps. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exactly similar goods manufactured by other manufacturers. When the appellants allege discrimination vis-a-vis other manufacturers who, according to the appellants, are similarly placed, the onus is on the appellants to establish that, in fact, they had been discriminated against. 15. We have perused the adjudication proceedings and the deposition of witnesses. The appellants had no doubt referred to other manufacturers who, according to the appellants, were producing similar goods, but whose goods were not being charged to duty as P.P. Caps, but they had not added any corroborative evidence. This onus on the appellants, in our view, has not been satisfactorily discharged by them. 16. On the other hand, the Collector has discussed in his order the cases of 4 other manufacturers whose names had been furnished by the appellants and recorded his findings with reference to each of them, as ascertained from official records. 17. In short, the Collector s findings were that the products of M/s. Dashing Tin Works were held as not falling under Item 42-CET; that M/s. Tecknowcraft Corporation were manufacturing P.P. Caps and had been licensed since 1965; that M/s. Issa Jamal Group ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
