SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.GROVER, G.SANKARAN, S.DUGGAL
Rekha Industries. – Appellant
Versus
Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.C. Jain,K.D. Tayal

ORDER

G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. The Department's case, as seen-from the records, is that the appellants manufactured during the period 6-2-69 to 16-4-77, a quantity of 1,01,81,375 pieces of pilfer-proof caps (hereinafter referred to as P.P. Caps) falling under Item No. 42 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as CET) without taking out a Central Excise licence and removed the said goods from the factory premises without payment of central excise duty leviable thereon. By a Show Cause Notice dated 6-10-77, the appellants were asked to show cause to the Collector of Central Excise why duty at the appropriate rate should not be demanded from them on the said quantity of P.P. Caps under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and why a quantity of 2,23,645 pieces of P.P. Caps seized from them should not be confiscated under Rule 173-Q(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 Rs. 500

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top