9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceed the respective limits (15 million matches and 120 million matches respectively) prescribed under the Notification. One Shri A. Veluchamy was the holder of licence for M/s. Chellapandi Match Works. His brother, one Shri A. Ramasamy was looking after the factory. Investigations conducted by the Department revealed that, during 1990-91, Shri Ramasamy had clandestinely purchased 11,160 units of Central Excise Stamps by opening a duplicate RG-3 Register, without accounting them in the statutory records. It appeared to the Department that the said Central Excise Stamps had been sold profitably to Middle Sector Units. A show-cause notice was, therefore, issued to M/s. Veluchamy and Ramasamy proposing to deny them the benefit of concession u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-Appeal Nos. 141 142/1993 was passed by the Collector (Appeals), Trichy, the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai reviewed Order-in-Original No. 42/93, dated 17-3-1993 of the Assistant Collector under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, pursuant to which an appeal was filed with the Collector (Appeals) against the said Order-in-Original. In this appeal, the contention of the Department before the Collector (Appeals) was that, if the 11,160 units of matches were included in the production of M/s. Chellapandi Match Works, their production would exceed the monthly production limit of 15 million prescribed under Notification No. 22/82-C.E. and consequently they would be rendered ineligible for the a benefit of concess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. - Del.)]. Ld. SDR did not cite any binding case law to the contra on the point. 4. After considering the submissions, we find that the challenge in Appeal No. E/2426/1998 against Order-in-Appeal No. 69/94 is not sustainable in view of the Larger Bench decision cited by ld. Counsel. Before the Larger Bench was Appeal No. E/1530/2001 which was filed by the Revenue challenging Order-in-Original dated 27-4-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi. The said Order-in-Original had dropped a demand of over Rs. 8 crores raised in a show-cause notice dated 30-12-1991 issued to M/s. LML Ltd. However, while dropping the demand, the Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee under Rule 173Q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by Id. Collector (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 69/94. We, therefore, reject the Revenue's appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 69/94. 6. In the remaining two appeals, the Revenue's main prayer is that the benefit of Notification 22/82-C.E. be denied to the respondents. This relief cannot be granted in these appeals inasmuch as the Asst. Collector's finding in Order-in- Original No. 42/93 that the benefit of the Notification was not liable to be denied to the Match Works was not challenged by the Revenue and attained finality. As regards the Revenue's challenge to the dropping of demand of differential duty on M/s Veluchamy and Ramasamy, we find that the only ground stated by the appellant is that "there is therefore every reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
