G JEYAKANNAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 24-7-T987 confirming Jhe order of the Superintendent of Central Excise (Technical), Virudhunagar, dated 9-1-1987 demanding a differential duty of Rs. 4,736.80 at Tariff rate on grounds of under-filling of matches in 200 bundles.

(2.) The appellant is a manufacturer of matches under two brand names, "No. 16" brand and "We Two" brand. The appellant is admittedly a middle sector unit not entitled to any concessional benefits in terms of Central Excise Notification 22/82, dated 23-2-1982. On 1-4-1986, the Central Excise Preventive Party visited the appellant's factory at Virudhunagar and scrutinised the Central Excise documents and made physical verification of the matches and bandroles in the factory. The authorities found that the appellant had kept 200 bundles of "No. 16" brand and 500 bundles of "We Two" brand after clearance on payment of duty. The said goods were kept in the appellant's premises, because, according to the appellant, lorry was not available for effecting clearance of the same and transporting the same outside the factory. The authorities verified the contents of the matches and found that everything was in order insofar as 500 bundles of "We Two" band were concerned. On a scrutiny of the "No. 16" brand matches, the authorities found that on an average the boxes contained only 44 sticks instead of 50 sticks. Shri Gnanamani, the Power Agent of the appellant, who was present at the time, gave a statement before the authorities that the under-filling had occurred because of the "carelessness of the box-filling workers and expressed regret for the same". It is in these circumstances, after further investigations, the Superintendent of Central Excise (Technical) gave a show cause notice dated 2.7.1986 demanding differential duty under Rule 63 and Notification 22/82, dated 23.2.1982 and directing the appellant to show cause against imposition of penalty for the contraventions under the Act. The proceedings instituted thereafter resulted in original order of adjudication demanding the differential duty and penalty and on appeal the duty was confirmed and the penalty was dropped under the impugned order by the lower appellate authority and this appeal arises out of the said impugned order.

(3.) THE learned Consultant also further submitted that even if the boxes contained lesser number of sticks than what it should contain, that would not be a ground for fastening a duty liability or invoking the Tariff rate.