M/S. Prem Prakash Gupta and Bros (P) Vs. Cce, Kanpur - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in the impugned order, the collector (appeals) observed that "from perusal of the show cause notice and document submitted by the appellant it is apparently clear that there is no allegation regarding clandestine removal or removal with intent to evade payment of central excise duty. further in view of the fact that the appellants are ssi unit and were regularly informing the department about their manufacturing activities and requesting for proper guidance time and again, i am of the opinion that the contravention of rules is of technical nature and does not deserve to be penalised in such harsh manner. accordingly i pass the following order.in view of the aforesaid facts i reduce the penalty imposed upon the appellants from rupees six thousand to rupees one thousand (1000/-) only.except for the aforesaid modification the order-in-original dt.27.11.95 is upheld as legal and proper." 2. in the order-in-original, the assistant commissioner had confirmed a demand of rs.957.40 and imposed a penalty of rs.6,000/-." 3. the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals, essential oils and miscellaneous chemical products. during the course of scrutiny of rt 12 returns filed by the appellants for the quarter ending december, 1994, it was observed that they had cleared their product compound-wp vide invoice no.24, 26, 31 to their another unit without showing assessable value of the product with a remark on the invoices 'transferred for further processing under notf.no.217/86'. the appellants had not got this product endorsed in their registration certificate nor did they submit any classification list for the product properly. a scn was accordingly issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why duty amounting to rs.957.40 should not be demanded from them and why a penalty should not be imposed.4. the appellants made certain submissions and after considering the various submissions and the evidence on record, the commissioner held as indicated above and hence the appeal before us.5. none appeared for the appellants. however, there is a request from the appellants that their case may be considered on merits.6. we have heard shri m.p. singh, ld.dr. we find that the points have been properly considered by the lower authorities. nothing is left out in view of the fact that the commissioner (appeals) considered the facts and submissions made before him. we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. in the circumstances the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is accordingly rejected.

Judgment:
1. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) observed that "From perusal of the show cause notice and document submitted by the appellant it is apparently clear that there is no allegation regarding clandestine removal or removal with intent to evade payment of central excise duty. Further in view of the fact that the appellants are SSI unit and were regularly informing the department about their manufacturing activities and requesting for proper guidance time and again, I am of the opinion that the contravention of Rules is of technical nature and does not deserve to be penalised in such harsh manner. Accordingly I pass the following order.

In view of the aforesaid facts I reduce the penalty imposed upon the appellants from Rupees six thousand to Rupees one thousand (1000/-) only.

Except for the aforesaid modification the order-in-original dt.27.11.95 is upheld as legal and proper." 2. In the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner had confirmed a demand of Rs.957.40 and imposed a penalty of Rs.6,000/-." 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals, essential oils and miscellaneous chemical products. During the course of scrutiny of RT 12 returns filed by the appellants for the quarter ending December, 1994, it was observed that they had cleared their product Compound-WP vide Invoice No.24, 26, 31 to their another unit without showing assessable value of the product with a remark on the invoices 'transferred for further processing under Notf.No.217/86'. The appellants had not got this product endorsed in their registration certificate nor did they submit any classification list for the product properly. A SCN was accordingly issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs.957.40 should not be demanded from them and why a penalty should not be imposed.

4. The appellants made certain submissions and after considering the various submissions and the evidence on record, the Commissioner held as indicated above and hence the appeal before us.

5. None appeared for the appellants. However, there is a request from the appellants that their case may be considered on merits.

6. We have heard Shri M.P. Singh, ld.DR. We find that the points have been properly considered by the lower authorities. Nothing is left out in view of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the facts and submissions made before him. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In the circumstances the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is accordingly rejected.