9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and value for assessment was to be determined in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The available goods were seized and the petitioner-firm was called upon to explain why penal action should not be taken against them for mis-declaration of goods and why duty short-paid not be recovered. 2. The petitioner-firm took the stand that they are not the owners of the fabrics and hence not responsible for mis-declaration about the exact percentage of contents of different fabrics. Therefore seizure of the goods is illegal. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, however observed that the fabrics which so apparently revealed the quality of yarn used in them would have failed to catch the observation of the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners. However, the Board reduced the fine and penalty amount to Rs. 15,000/- each. 4. In the revision application, dated 11-8-1978 it is submitted that the fine and penalty totalling Rs. 30,000/- is a harsh punishment. The petitioner firm is entitled only to processing charges and had no interest in the fabrics which continued to be the actual property of the weaving mills. The Board erred in holding that the petitioner-firm stood to gain. It is further submitted that the petitioner-firm cannot be held responsible for any mix-declaration and have signed agreements with the owners of the fabrics to the effect that they will not undertake responsibility for declaration of the composition of the fabrics and as such the responsibility on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board and copies thereof have also been annexed to the present Revision Application. 6. The learned counsel conceded that he has nothing to say in respect of the fine in lieu of confiscation as well as the higher duty liability, as the petitioners have been reimbursed by the parties concerned in pursuance of the agreement and conditions of processing referred to and set out in para 2 above. The petitioners' plea is that the penal action to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- is not warranted and not reimbursible in terms of the agreement. The counsel argued that there is no evidence led at the time of adjudication to show that there was any mens rea on the part of the petitioner-firm. The proceedings under rule 173Q being quasi-criminal in nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fabrics by mis-declaration. The petitioner-firm may not derive any benefit from payment of lesser duty as it would be recovered from the weavers, as expressly provided for in the agreement between the parties and petitioner-firm in the bills made out to in respect of the individual lots cleared and delivered after processing. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Government remit the penalty of Rs. 15,000/- imposed on the petitioner-firm in full. In so far as the fine in lieu of confiscation as well as the higher duty liability is concerned, Government do not see any justification for a modification as the petitioner-firm have admittedly been reimbursed by the textile mills concerned in pursuance of the agreement betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
