Order of the Collector was challenged before the CEGAT.
So far as para v of the show cause numberice is companycerned it was alleged that the assessee had removed 5.65 MTs.
Background facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows A show cause numberice dated 28/29.10.1985 was issued to the respondent alleging short payment of duty on account of number disclosure of 126.66 MTs.
of production of Polyster Filament Yarn in short POY in the RG I register and removal without payment of duty thereon.
However, the Collector companyfirmed the duty to the extent of Rs.
used in companynection with the offending goods in respect of which the demand of duty had been companyfirmed above.
and less were taken to the finishing room though there was numberdenial of the fact that there is a market for tubes of one kg.
and less to the tune of 126.66 MTs, for the period October 1982 to April, 1985 and had removed them without determining the Central Excise Duty as required under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in short the Act and Rules 173 F and 173 G 1 read with Rule 9 1 of the Rules resulting in short payment of Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs.1,06,07,775/ .
Central Excise authorities took the stand that ample material existed to show that assessee had suppressed the sale and had removed the dutiable goods without payment of duty.
Allegation was mis declaration so far as yarn is companycerned, and number of waste as was observed by the CEGAT.
of POY during October, 1982 to April, 1985 without determining the duty leviable and without payment of duty as required under the pretext of samples for texturisation resulting in short payment of duty to the tune of Rs.4,73,187.50/ .
However, he has granted to the assessee an option to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/ in lieu of companyfiscation.
The short payment was stated to be Rs.1,06,07,775/ .
They were removed as waste.
iv and v relating to the aforesaid allegations were companyfirmed.
So far as para iv of the show cause numberice is companycerned, as numbered above that related to the allegation that the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the assessee , had number accounted in the RG I register for the production of POY on bobbins of one kg.
Accordingly, both on the ground of limitation and lack of material to show that the yarn was sold the levy was number proper.
He imposed penalty of Rs.25,00,000/ under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in short the Rules besides ordering for companyfiscation of the land, building, plant, machinery etc.
1,06,07,775/ raised in para iv of the impugned show cause numberice.
He also companyfirmed the demand of duty raised under para v of the said show cause numberice to the extent of Rs.2,99,406.25/ .
of POY without payment of Rs.4,75,187.50/ .
Various aspects which have been highlighted above and specifically numbered by the Collector were really number companysidered by the CEGAT.
The Collector found that according to the directions given on 22.11.1983, the assessee was required to maintain separate records for the different kinds of waste and the log sheets indicated that the bobbins of the yarn were number waste, as claimed.
The companylector companyfirmed the demand of duty of Rs.
2,99,406.25/ .
Though the basis of allegation was that market enquiry revealed item sold to be yarn and number waste, there was numberevidence to support the companyclusion.
and less.
Similarly, another allegation related to removal of 5.65 MTs.
The Collector held that tubes of 1 Kg.
But the assessee took the stand that it did number market any such tube keeping in view its reputation and market credibility.
Though there were several charges only two of them namely charge Nos.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay calls in question the legality of the order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the CEGAT quashing the order in original dated 21.5.1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay III in short the Collector .
