ICYCOLD COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX
LAWS(CE)-1991-6-2
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 21,1991

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.P. Nambiar, Member (J) - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I in Order No. CPO/Collr/22/84 dated 5-2-1983, the appellant has approached this Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the learned Collector in this behalf. In terms of that order, the learned Collector ordered that the appellant shall pay the excise duty amounting to Rs. 75,988.50 liable on 131 pcs. of the goods as demanded in the show cause notice, and also ordered imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules/1944, to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as enumerated by the department is that the applicant firm, who are manufacturers of parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances, all sorts, falling under Item No. 29A(3) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (i) manufactured and removed 107 compressors valued at Rs. 59,170 under cover of Central Excise "Re-issue duty paid gate passes" on which no Central Excise duty due was determined and paid and without accountal in the Central Excise statutory records, and (ii) manufactured 24 compressors valued at Rs. 13,200/-, out of compressors blocks and removed the same without determination and payment of Central Excise duty due thereon and without cover of Central Excise gate passes and without accountal in the Central Excise statutory records during the period from April, 1976 to April, 1978. In view of the above facts a show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging the contraventions of the provisions of Rules 9(1), 173G(1), 173G(2) read with Rule 52A, Rule 173G(4) read with Rules 53, 55, 173H and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereby the appellant was asked to show cause as to why the aforesaid duty should not be paid by them and the penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant submitted a reply and after adjudication, the impugned order was passed. ,
(3.) THE learned Advocate Shri N. Mookherjee appeared for the appellant and Shri A. Choudhury, learned JDR appeared for the respondent in this case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.