S.C. Jain, Member (J)

1. These are four revision applications filed before the Government of India (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal) under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against No. 454-457/CE/1980 dated 2-7-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.

2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Silicate falling under Item No. 14BB of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and were working under (the now) defunct Chapter VI1-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

3. As per the allegations made by the appellants, on account of serious differences among the partners, the functioning of the appellant firm became impossible and it was decided to close down the unit permanently and to stop the production. Therefore, the manufacture was completely stopped w.e.f. 1-8-1977 and accordingly, the duty liability fixed under the simplified procedure was not discharged for that month onwards. An intimation was accordingly given to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, Jullundur on 20-8-1977 informing the complete stoppage of manufacture by the appellants. However, show cause notice in all the four matters were served upon the appellants M/s. Hindustan Chemical Works, Jullundar under which they were charged for the contravention of the provisions of Rule 173 RD and 173-RE(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and they were required to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173RL and also that the Central Excise Duty for the period August 1977 onwards should not be demanded from them under the said Rules.

4. In response to the show cause notices M/s. Hindustan Chemical Works, the appellants, stated that their licences for the year 1978 had not been renewed and hence they were not the licencees for that period. They further added that their factory was closed w.e.f. 1-8-1977 due to serious dispute among the partners and an intimation to this effect was given to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range I, Jullundar and therefore, the question of depositing the duty for the said period did not arise.

5. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise did not accept the contention of the appellants and confirmed the demand against the appellants under Rule 173-RL of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in all the four cases.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, the appellants preferred four appeals before the Appellate Collector who decided all the four appeals by a single Order No. 454-457/CE/80 dated 2nd July, 1980 holding that the appellants did not surrender their licences for cancellation and as such duty liability so fixed is to be paid by the appellants. However, the order imposing the penalty upon the appellants was set aside.

7. Not satisfied with the said order of the Appellate Collector, the appellants preferred four revision applications before the Government of India, which were transferred to this Tribunal and were treated as appeals. As the matter involved in all these four appeals is the same so all these four appeals are disposed of by this single order.

8. We have heard S/Shri A.K.S. Bedi along with S.C. Chopra, Advocates, for the appellants and Shri A.K. Jain, S.D.R., for the department and gone through the records.

9. Shri Bedi, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the manufacture was completely stopped w.e.f. 1-8-1977. According to him it was not a case of temporary breakdown or cessation of the work but was complete stoppage of manufacture by the appellants as they never started production again. They were, therefore, not under any legal obligation to discharge the duty liability for that period when they had completely stopped the manufacture of the excisable goods.

10. Shri Bedi further pointed out that the appellants were asked to show cause for the demand of duty for the months of August, September, October, November, December 1977 and January