CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
P.C. Jain, S.L. PEERAN, JJ.
Agrico Engg. Works -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Meerut -Respondent
Misc. Order No. E/273/93-B1, Final order no. E/271/94-B1 Appeal No. E/3179/91-B1, 272 of 1993, 271 of 1994, 3179 of 1991
Decided On : 13-05-1994
ORDER
Per S.L. Peeran
The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-original passed by Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.
2. By this order the ld. Collector has confirmed a duty demand of (i) Rs. 15,000/- basic and Rs. 750.00 (Special) on 200 pcs. of Hydraulic Power Lift Bodies cleared by assessee to M/s. Escorts Ltd. and seized by Central Excise Officers of Faridabad as duty to the above extent had been short paid on such goods under Rule 9 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
ii) Imposed Rs. 20,000/- fine on the said seized goods and amount appropriated from Rs. 11 lakhs.
iii) Ordered for confiscation of 781 pes. of Hydraulic Power Lift Bodies bearing brand name of 'Escort' valued at Rs. 5,85,780,00 and 19 plates bearing brand name of 'B.M.' valued at Rs. 1,14,800.00, seized on 6.3.90 by Central Excise Officers and held the assessee liable to pay Rs. 80,000/- as fine and the same was appropriated from bond B-11.
iv) Demanded and confirmed a excise duty amount of Rs. 11,42,843.12 Basic and Rs. 44,953.20 (special) evaded/short paid by the party on the branded tractor parts of such tractor engine capacity of which exceeded 1800cc cleared by them to M/s. Escorts Ltd., Baridabad during Oct'87 to Feb'90 under Rule 9 (2) read with Section 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
v) Demanded and confirmed excise duty amount of Rs. 3,02,232.10 basic and Rs. 11,861.65 (special) evaded/short paid by the party on the parts of paper printing machine bearing brand name of 'B.M' manufactured and cleared by the party to M/s. Bandhu Machinery (P) Ltd., Gurgaon during Oct'87 to Feb'90 under Rule 9 (2) read with the provision of Section 11A of Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944.
vi) Imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the party under Rule 9 (2) and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. The facts of the case are that the officers of the Preventive Officers Central Excise, Faridabad, while petroling on Mathura Road, Faridabad intercepted a Truck bearing Reg. No. DLL-6452 coming from Bedarpur Delhi side. On demand, the driver produced GP.I No. 102 dt. 5.3.90 issued by the assessee and other documents. On a physical check, the officers found in the truck 'Hydraulic Power Lift Body' (Tractor parts) used in the manufacture of Tractors (exceeding 1800 cc) affixed with a brand name of 'ESCORT' embossed on the said lift bodies on one side and 041-AEW on the other side. On examining the G.P.I, it revealed that the party was availing concessional rate of date as applicable to SSI units at the rate of 10% advance in terms of notification No. 175/86-CE dt. 1.3.86 as amended. On further scrutiny, it revealed that the party was not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 175/86-CE as they were affixing the brand name of 'ESCORT' a brand name of another person, who was not eligible for such exemption in view of amendment brought about the notification No. 233/87 dt. 22.9.87. Hence, these goods were confiscated by the officers for contravention of rule 9 (2) and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. In a follow-up action, the officers visited factory premises on 6.3.90 and found that the party was engaged in the manufacturer of Hydraulic Power Lift Body, wheel reduction housing (Tractor parts) classifiable under sub-heading 8708.00 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 attracting CEB @ 20% of advance and also parts of papers printing machinery classifiable under sub-heading 9443.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 attracting duty @ 15% advance in their factory located at Hapur road, Ghaziabad. The party had registered with Directorate of Industries, U.P. and found availing of the benefit of SSI as available under exempting Notification No. 175/86-CE dt. 1.3.86.
5. The physical verification of stocks was carried on in the presence of Shri K.K. Sachdeva, Foreman. On physical verification, it was found that there were 262 pcs. of Hydraulic Power Lift Body duly finished and having brand name of 'ESCORT' engraved on them. Besides, this 519 pcs. of Hydraul
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.