9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and 38,439 pieces of Tops which are component parts of L.P. Gas Stoves manufactured by them. 2. The appeal was heard on different dates before different Members of this Bench. On behalf of the appellants, Shri Sekhar Mukhopadhyay learned Advocate, appeared before the Bench and contended that they had admitted the removal of complete LPG burners manufactured by them in their unit No. 2 and paid the duty leviable thereon. The notice issued to them asked them to show cause only in respect of their Unit No. 2. The duty demanded in the order purports to relate to alleged clearances from their Unit No 1 of parts of the stoves. The Deputy Collector had adjudicated the case for both Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2. There was no mention in the Show C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75 by Notification 102/82 prescribing Chapter X Procedure, it took some time for them to obtain the L-6 licence and during this period they purchased some parts and stored in a separate godown and transferred to Unit No. 2 for manufacturing. They had furnished the particulars of such purchases but the Central Excise authorities had made enquiries with regard to only some of the suppliers. The result of the Depart-mental enquiries were not made known to them. The learned Counsel relied upon two decisions: (i) 1987 (10) ECR 407; and (ii) 1978 ELT 172 SC : 1976 Cen-Cus 81D : ECR C (S.C.) 198. He concluded with a prayer for setting aside the order under appeal by allowing their appeal. 3. On behalf of the respondent Collector, the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bodies were the same as Brass Controllers. He also said that the finding that they had contravened Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules was untenable. This provision had not been cited in the Show Cause Notice. Further, the Deputy Collector's finding that they cannot be given the benefit of doubt is against the principles of adjudication. If there is scope for extending benefit of doubt it has to be given in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, reiterated his plea for allowing their appeal. 5. We have carefully examined the matter. In the impugned order-in-appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that as the appellants had not obtained the permission of the Central Excise authorities for bringing excisable goods purchased from out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we feel that where the only evidence is the documents taken from them and they do not indicate that they were manufactured in Unit No. 1 and instead a defence plea taken that they were purchased from outside, there is no evidence not to accept this plea. The Deputy Collr. has stated in his order that they produced vouchers for the purchase of the item at the time of the personal hearing before him. He has observed that it was difficult to prove the identity of origin of the Tops and Controllers and that it was difficult to establish the fact that the Tops and Controllers are bought out trading items as maintained by them and hence the benefit of doubt cannot be given to them. This view will have few takers. It was difficult for the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
