Nikharka Dyg. and Ptg. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these twenty-five appeals, arising from the same order are disposed by this common order. the duties demanded and the penal lies imposed and redemption fine determined are as follows- (i) i order the following processing units to pay central excise duty amounting to rupees as indicated against each of them on the processed fabrics so removed by them to m/s. nangalia group of companies during the period from 1-4-1997 to 16-12-1998, under section 11a(2) of central excise act, 1944:------------------------------------------------sr.no. name of processing unit duty amount (rs.)------------------------------------------------1 m/s. anjani dyg& ptg mills 5,76,124/-2 m/s. asian dyg.& ptg mills 3,16,122/-3 m/s. gomti processors ltd. 8,836/-4 m/s. mamta dyg & ptg mills 13,422/-5 nitharika dyg & ptg mills 61,236/-6 oriental dyg & ptg mills 12,832/-7 prakash dyg & ptg mills 5,042/-8 rajlaxmi prints pvt ltd. 56,36,843/-9 rupa dyg & ptg mills 95,769/-10 suntex fabrics pvt ltd. 47,63,841/-11 varun dyg & ptg mills 1,39,942/------------------------------------------------- (ii) i impose penalty on following processing units under rule 173q(1) of central excise rules, 1944 read with section 11 ac of central excise act, 1944 as under :-------------------------------------------------sr.no. name of processing unit duty amount (rs.)-------------------------------------------------1 m/s. anjani dyg & ptg mills 5,76,124/-2 m/s. asian dyg.& ptg mills 3,16,122/-3 m/s. gomti processors ltd. 8,836/-4 m/s. mamta dyg & ptg mills 13,422/-5 nitharika dyg & ptg mills 61,236/-6 oriental dyg & ptg mills 12,832/-7 prakash dyg & ptg mills 5,042/-8 rajlaxmi prints pvt. ltd. 56,36,843/-9 rupa dyg & ptg mills 95,769/-10 suntex fabrics pvt. ltd. 47,63,841/-11 varun dyg & ptg mills 1,39,942/-------------------------------------------------- (iii) i impose penalty on following director/partner/authorised signatory of the processing units as detailed in (i) above under rule 209a of central excise rules, 1944 as under:-----------------------------------------------------------sr.no name of director/partner/ amount of authorised signatory penalty (rs.)-----------------------------------------------------------1 shri shailendra kumar k. agarwal direc- 30,000/- tor of m/s. anjani dyg & ptg mills2 shri harivadan bhamcha partner of m/s. 16,000/- asian dyg & ptg mills3 shri anil r. agarwala director of m/s. 500/- gomti processors ltd.4 shri suresh kumar, h. chag director of 2,38,000/- m/s. suntex fabrics pvt. ltd.5 shri rakesh chandrabhan goyal director 7,000/- of varun dyg & ptg mills6 shri akshay kumar, m. juneja director of 2,82,000/- m/s. rajlaxmi prints pvt. ltd.7 shri habib rehman abdul gani unwala, 700/- m.d. of oriental dyg & ptg mills8 shri jay prakash s. bhomia authorized 4,800/- signatory of m/s. rupa dyg & ptg mills9 shri mahendra singh f. singhvi director 700/- of m/s. mamta dyg & ptg mills10 shri manish r. gupta director of m/s. 3,000/- nitharika dyg & ptg mills11 shri naresh d. vanshai authorized signa- 250/- tory of m/s. prakash dyg & ptg mills (iv) i also impose penalty on following firms/persons of m/s. nangalia group of companies under 209a of central excise rules, 1944 as under.-------------------------------------------------------sr.no name of processing unit amount of penalty------------------------------------------------------1 m/s. nangalia fabrics 40,00,0002 m/s. nangalia fabrics pvt. ltd. 1,20,0003 m/s. nangalia texturisers pvt. ltd. 86,0004 m/s. uttam fabrics 92,0005 m/s. classic weavers 58,0006 bee am vee associates 1,12,0007 shri vimalkumar p. nangalia 10,00,000------------------------------------------------------- (v) i order all processing units listed at (i) above to pay the interest @ 20% per annum of delayed payment of central excise duty recoverable from them as indicated against each under section 11ab of central excise act, 1944. (vi) i confiscate the seized processed fabrics i.e. 161421.75 1. mtrs. valued at rs. 1,01,75,345.50 and 133.25 1. mtrs valued at rs. 7,329/- under rule 173q(1) of central excise rules, 1944. however, since the above said processed fabrics have been got released provisionally by m/s. nangalia group of cos., on execution of b-11 bond for the full value of the seized goods backed by bank guarantee of rs. 12,47,759/-, 47,183/-, 7,32,540/- and rs. 9,053/- totally rs. 20,36,535/- and the said seized goods have not been produced before me during the proceedings, i enforce the b-11 bond and appropriate the bank guarantee of rs. 20,36,5357-. (vii) i confiscate the land, building, plant & machinery of the processing units namely, (i) m/s. anjali dyg & ptg mills ltd. (ii) m/s. asian dyg & ptg mills, (iii) m/s. rajlaxmi prints pvt ltd. (iv) m/s. suntex fabrics pvt ltd. & (v) m/s. varun dyg & ptg mills under the erstwhile rule 173q(2)(a) of central excise rules, 1944. however i give them an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine as indicated below.--------------------------------------------------------sr. no. name of processing unit amount of fine imposed (rs.)--------------------------------------------------------1 m/s. anjani dyg & ptg mills 30,000/-2 m/s. asian dyg & ptg mills 16,000/-3 m/s. rajlaxmi prints pvt ltd. 2,82,000'-4 m/s. suntex fabrics pvt ltd. 2,38,000/-5 m/s. varun dyg & ptg mills 70,001-------------------------------------------------------- 1.2 appellants at sr. nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 25 are processors of mmf and assessee under the central excise and duty has been determined and demanded from them on the grounds that the value of gray fabrics, supplied to them by the traders, the other appellants were lower than it ought to have been. consequently the nangalia group of companies at sr. nos. 5,7,8, 11, 12 and 13, listed supra and others had knowingly aided and abetted in this undervaluation consequently duty and penalties have been arrived on the processors and the traders who had supplied the fabrics for processing along with penalties on employees and directors (listed at sr. nos. 2, 4, 9, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24 of the test supra) have also been arrived. the common notice dated 22-5-1989 demands duty on fabrics processed and cleared between april, 1997 and december, 1998 involving the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11 a(1).1.3 the processors case is that they had declared the valuation on each lot of gray fabrics received with the declaration signed by the traders who had supplied the fabrics as required under notification 27/92 and it was not practicable for them to verify the correctness of the declaration, nor was there any legal requirement to do so and the extended period of demand in any case will not be applicable as no collusion between the processor and the trader who supplied the fabrics is even alleged much less it existed. since the processing was conducted in the normal course of business. the allegation of blindly accepting the traders declaration by the processor as alleged will not call for invocation of the larger period.2.1 after hearing both sides and considering the material it is found :- (a) the id. advocate, sh. christian submits for the processors that once declarations have been filed under notification 27/92 the liability of the processors as regards deliberate misdeclaration would disminish and cease specially when no collusion is alleged therefore the period under the proviso to section 11a(1) cannot be invoked for and demands for the period 1997-98 to 15-12-1998 by scn dated 22-5-1999 cannot be invoked. the business dealings of the processors was with 130 to 150 clients (traders) and the nangalia a group was hardly providing business of 5 to 10% of the turn over there is no allegation of any special relationship with nangalia a group or its directors or a flow back from the alleged undervaluation. it was specifically pointed out that the panchanama dtd. 25-11-1998 nor the several statements as recorded of nangalia directors in any way indicate any specific preconcert or knowledge whish could be attributed to his clients (m/s. suntex fabrics pvt. ltd. m/s. raj laxmi prints pvt. ltd.). we find force in their arguments to give the benefits of doubt as regards the penalty arrived at in this case of the directors and employees of the processors and or the assessees. (b) the id. advocate for the processors stressed on the point that the assessable value of goods manufactured on job work basis, on examining the larger bench decision in the case of cce v. bhilwara processors ltd. 6. ... a job worker cannot escape the liability to pay duty on correct valuation of the grey fabrics in view of the undertaking given by them under notification no. 27/92-ce (n.t.)....sangam processors (bhilwara) ltd. v. cce, jaipur when the trader gives value as his selling price of the processed fabric, that price given by the trader must be accepted by the job worker for the purpose of payment of duty. the excise authorities cannot go beyond that declared value. it would therefore appear that benefit of the decision in could be available to the assessee begin larger bench decision as the full implication of notification 27/92 declaration came to be settled only by larger bench vide its order in lb on 30-9-2002. thus benefit of doubt would go to the processors to have reasons to believe that one cannot go beyond the declarations as given by traders under notification 27/92. even the departmental authorities were not clear about the status of such a declaration; that it was not sacrosanct, was not the belief to be entertained came to be settled by larger bench, this is also reinforced as they also did not take any action on rt12's and other declarations filed by the assessees within the normal period of demands under section 11a(1) by questioning these declarations in this case. when the department, almost all over india and the jurisdictional officers of the processors herein, did not suspect and found any thing amiss in the declarations as filed and returns of duty paid vide rt12s lodged every month, the processors not even alleged, to entertain any suspicion, except only m/s. rupa dyeing & printing mills pvt. ltd.; who appears to have received the gray of similar nature from other traders at higher declared valuations, as alleged in para 17 of the show cause notice, we cannot find that the processors had any reasons to believe and suspect the declarations and notification 27/92. in any case, even if the processors filed under reason to doubt the same, as alleged, what they could have done? the facility to go behind the declaration and start an inquiry into the declarations made under notification 27/92 was required to be done by the proper officers, at the relevant time of attending to the rt12 assessments as filed. the present show cause notice, has been issued only on 5-12-2000, after a full fledged enquiry that started somewhere on 25-11-1998. search of nangalia groups and others were caused. if the departmental officers, with all the resources of man power and backing of law to conduct an enquiry, took almost 2 years to come to a prima facie conclusion of under declared values by the traders, it is unfair to visit the assessee, to have knowledge and having to being knowingly to have declared lower prices as declared to have vide notification 27/92 by the trader when in the milieu of the law, mmf processing trades as understood then and commercial practice at that time was otherwise i.e. during the relevant period 1997-98 to 15-12-1998. we would therefore find no reasons or find ingredients exist to uphold the invocation of the larger period of demand in the facts herein. duty demands and liabilities to confiscation therefore cannot be upheld. (c) the plea on behalf of nangellia group, made by id. advocate sh. bulachandani, that they are manufacturer and weavers of fabrics and the prime quality of gray fabrics were sold and the declarations made for the fabrics sent for processing by them was more than the costing thereof and being defective not of saleable standard the valuation of such of gray cannot be of comparable fabrics being sold in the market as of prime quality has force. in any case, the valuation is being composed with market sale price of gray fabrics, without any evidence of similar quality being on record. the traders were required to and gave the cost plus declaration. mixing of lots and other commercial consideration went in the declaration made. the evidence similar grey quality receipts of m/s. rupa was not on record. the proposed valuations cannot upheld. different qualities of gray are a commercial reality. that cannot be ignored by revenue. we find force in the arguments and the grounds taken by the appellants in this appeal. no demands on merits can be arrived at. we find no mens rea or knowing concert with any alleged evasion and dealing with excisable goods knowingly that such goods excluded to confiscate is on record. we find no reason to visit them with rule 209a penalties as arrived. (d) the imposition of penalty under rule 173q and section 11ac as arrived cannot be upheld on facts herein and also the position in law not upholding of such 'joint read with' penalties, following the decision in case of jay yuhshin ltd. - 2002 (147) e.l.t. 743 (t); agarwal pharmaceutical - ; monica electronics ltd. - ; punjab recorder ltd.- . (e) since no duty demand and or penalties or confiscation are being arrived at, the penalties under rule 209a are not upheld in all cases as arrived in the impugned order.3. in view of the findings arrived, we find no merits to uphold the order in these appeals. the order is set aside and the appeals allowed.

Judgment:
1. These twenty-five appeals, arising from the same order are disposed by this common order. The duties demanded and the penal lies imposed and redemption fine determined are as follows- (i) I order the following processing units to pay Central Excise duty amounting to rupees as indicated against each of them on the processed fabrics so removed by them to M/s. Nangalia Group of Companies during the period from 1-4-1997 to 16-12-1998, under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944:------------------------------------------------SR.NO. NAME OF PROCESSING UNIT DUTY AMOUNT (RS.)------------------------------------------------1 M/s. Anjani Dyg& Ptg Mills 5,76,124/-2 M/s. Asian Dyg.& Ptg Mills 3,16,122/-3 M/s. Gomti Processors Ltd. 8,836/-4 M/s. Mamta Dyg & Ptg Mills 13,422/-5 Nitharika Dyg & Ptg Mills 61,236/-6 Oriental Dyg & Ptg Mills 12,832/-7 Prakash Dyg & Ptg Mills 5,042/-8 Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt Ltd. 56,36,843/-9 Rupa Dyg & Ptg Mills 95,769/-10 Suntex Fabrics Pvt Ltd. 47,63,841/-11 Varun Dyg & Ptg Mills 1,39,942/------------------------------------------------- (ii) I impose penalty on following processing units under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 as under :-------------------------------------------------SR.NO. NAME OF PROCESSING UNIT DUTY AMOUNT (RS.)-------------------------------------------------1 M/s. Anjani Dyg & Ptg Mills 5,76,124/-2 M/s. Asian Dyg.& Ptg Mills 3,16,122/-3 M/s. Gomti Processors Ltd. 8,836/-4 M/s. Mamta Dyg & Ptg Mills 13,422/-5 Nitharika Dyg & Ptg Mills 61,236/-6 Oriental Dyg & Ptg Mills 12,832/-7 Prakash Dyg & Ptg Mills 5,042/-8 Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt. Ltd. 56,36,843/-9 Rupa Dyg & Ptg Mills 95,769/-10 Suntex Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 47,63,841/-11 Varun Dyg & Ptg Mills 1,39,942/-------------------------------------------------- (iii) I impose penalty on following Director/Partner/authorised signatory of the processing units as detailed in (i) above under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as under:-----------------------------------------------------------SR.NO NAME OF DIRECTOR/PARTNER/ AMOUNT OF AUTHORISED SIGNATORY PENALTY (RS.)-----------------------------------------------------------1 Shri Shailendra Kumar K. Agarwal Direc- 30,000/- tor of M/s. Anjani Dyg & Ptg Mills2 Shri Harivadan Bhamcha Partner of M/s.

16,000/- Asian Dyg & Ptg Mills3 Shri Anil R. Agarwala Director of M/s.

500/- Gomti Processors Ltd.4 Shri Suresh Kumar, H. Chag Director of 2,38,000/- M/s. Suntex Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.5 Shri Rakesh Chandrabhan Goyal Director 7,000/- of Varun Dyg & Ptg Mills6 Shri Akshay Kumar, M. Juneja Director of 2,82,000/- M/s. Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt. Ltd.7 Shri Habib Rehman Abdul Gani Unwala, 700/- M.D. of Oriental Dyg & Ptg Mills8 Shri Jay Prakash S. Bhomia Authorized 4,800/- Signatory of M/s. Rupa Dyg & Ptg Mills9 Shri Mahendra Singh F. Singhvi Director 700/- of M/s. Mamta Dyg & Ptg Mills10 Shri Manish R. Gupta Director of M/s.

3,000/- Nitharika Dyg & Ptg Mills11 Shri Naresh D. Vanshai Authorized signa- 250/- tory of M/s. Prakash Dyg & Ptg Mills (iv) I also impose penalty on following firms/persons of M/s.

Nangalia Group of Companies under 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as under.-------------------------------------------------------Sr.No Name of processing unit Amount of penalty------------------------------------------------------1 M/s. Nangalia Fabrics 40,00,0002 M/s. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 1,20,0003 M/s. Nangalia Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. 86,0004 M/s. Uttam Fabrics 92,0005 M/s. Classic weavers 58,0006 Bee Am Vee associates 1,12,0007 Shri Vimalkumar P. Nangalia 10,00,000------------------------------------------------------- (v) I order all processing units listed at (i) above to pay the interest @ 20% per annum of delayed payment of Central Excise duty recoverable from them as indicated against each under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944.

(vi) I confiscate the seized processed fabrics i.e. 161421.75 1.

mtrs. valued at Rs. 1,01,75,345.50 and 133.25 1. mtrs valued at Rs. 7,329/- under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, since the above said processed fabrics have been got released provisionally by M/s. Nangalia Group of Cos., on execution of B-11 bond for the full value of the seized goods backed by Bank Guarantee of Rs. 12,47,759/-, 47,183/-, 7,32,540/- and Rs. 9,053/- totally Rs. 20,36,535/- and the said seized goods have not been produced before me during the proceedings, I enforce the B-11 bond and appropriate the bank guarantee of Rs. 20,36,5357-.

(vii) I confiscate the land, building, plant & machinery of the processing units namely, (i) M/s. Anjali Dyg & Ptg Mills Ltd. (ii) M/s. Asian Dyg & Ptg Mills, (iii) M/s. Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt Ltd. (iv) M/s. Suntex fabrics Pvt Ltd. & (v) M/s. Varun Dyg & Ptg Mills under the erstwhile Rule 173Q(2)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However I give them an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine as indicated below.--------------------------------------------------------Sr. no. Name of processing unit Amount of fine imposed (Rs.)--------------------------------------------------------1 M/s. Anjani Dyg & Ptg Mills 30,000/-2 M/s. Asian Dyg & Ptg Mills 16,000/-3 M/s. Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt Ltd. 2,82,000'-4 M/s. Suntex Fabrics Pvt Ltd. 2,38,000/-5 M/s. Varun Dyg & Ptg Mills 70,001-------------------------------------------------------- 1.2 Appellants at sr. Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 25 are processors of MMF and assessee under the Central Excise and duty has been determined and demanded from them on the grounds that the value of Gray fabrics, supplied to them by the Traders, the other appellants were lower than it ought to have been. Consequently the Nangalia Group of Companies at sr. Nos. 5,7,8, 11, 12 and 13, listed supra and others had knowingly aided and abetted in this undervaluation consequently duty and penalties have been arrived on the processors and the traders who had supplied the fabrics for processing along with penalties on employees and directors (listed at sr. Nos. 2, 4, 9, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24 of the test supra) have also been arrived. The common notice dated 22-5-1989 demands duty on fabrics processed and cleared between April, 1997 and December, 1998 involving the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11 A(1).

1.3 The processors case is that they had declared the valuation on each lot of Gray fabrics received with the declaration signed by the traders who had supplied the fabrics as required under notification 27/92 and it was not practicable for them to verify the correctness of the declaration, nor was there any legal requirement to do so and the extended period of demand in any case will not be applicable as no collusion between the processor and the trader who supplied the fabrics is even alleged much less it existed. Since the processing was conducted in the normal course of business. The allegation of blindly accepting the traders declaration by the processor as alleged will not call for invocation of the larger period.

2.1 After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found :- (a) The Id. Advocate, Sh. Christian submits for the processors that once declarations have been filed under notification 27/92 the liability of the processors as regards deliberate misdeclaration would disminish and cease specially when no collusion is alleged therefore the period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked for and demands for the period 1997-98 to 15-12-1998 by SCN dated 22-5-1999 cannot be invoked. The business dealings of the processors was with 130 to 150 clients (Traders) and the Nangalia a group was hardly providing business of 5 to 10% of the turn over there is no allegation of any special relationship with Nangalia a group or its Directors or a flow back from the alleged undervaluation. It was specifically pointed out that the panchanama dtd. 25-11-1998 nor the several statements as recorded of Nangalia Directors in any way indicate any specific preconcert or knowledge whish could be attributed to his clients (M/s. Suntex Fabrics Pvt.

Ltd. M/s. Raj Laxmi Prints Pvt. Ltd.). We find force in their arguments to give the benefits of doubt as regards the penalty arrived at in this case of the Directors and employees of the processors and or the assessees.

(b) The Id. Advocate for the processors stressed on the point that the assessable value of goods manufactured on job work basis, on examining the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. Bhilwara Processors Ltd. 6. ... A job worker cannot escape the liability to pay duty on correct valuation of the grey fabrics in view of the undertaking given by them under notification no. 27/92-CE (N.T.)....Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur when the trader gives value as his selling price of the processed fabric, that price given by the trader must be accepted by the job worker for the purpose of payment of duty. The Excise authorities cannot go beyond that declared value.

It would therefore appear that benefit of the decision in could be available to the assessee begin Larger Bench decision as the full implication of Notification 27/92 declaration came to be settled only by Larger Bench vide its order in LB on 30-9-2002. Thus benefit of doubt would go to the processors to have reasons to believe that one cannot go beyond the declarations as given by Traders under Notification 27/92. Even the departmental authorities were not clear about the status of such a declaration; That it was not sacrosanct, was not the belief to be entertained came to be settled by Larger Bench, this is also reinforced as they also did not take any action on RT12's and other declarations filed by the assessees within the normal period of demands under Section 11A(1) by questioning these declarations in this case. When the department, almost all over India and the jurisdictional officers of the processors herein, did not suspect and found any thing amiss in the declarations as filed and returns of duty paid vide RT12s lodged every month, the processors not even alleged, to entertain any suspicion, except only M/s. Rupa Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd.; who appears to have received the Gray of similar nature from other Traders at higher declared valuations, as alleged in para 17 of the Show Cause Notice, we cannot find that the processors had any reasons to believe and suspect the declarations and notification 27/92. In any case, even if the processors filed under reason to doubt the same, as alleged, what they could have done? The facility to go behind the declaration and start an inquiry into the declarations made under notification 27/92 was required to be done by the proper officers, at the relevant time of attending to the RT12 assessments as filed. The present show cause notice, has been issued only on 5-12-2000, after a full fledged enquiry that started somewhere on 25-11-1998. Search of Nangalia Groups and others were caused. If the Departmental Officers, with all the resources of man power and backing of law to conduct an enquiry, took almost 2 years to come to a prima facie conclusion of under declared values by the traders, it is unfair to visit the assessee, to have knowledge and having to being knowingly to have declared lower prices as declared to have vide notification 27/92 by the Trader when in the milieu of the law, MMF processing trades as understood then and commercial practice at that time was otherwise i.e. during the relevant period 1997-98 to 15-12-1998. We would therefore find no reasons or find ingredients exist to uphold the invocation of the larger period of demand in the facts herein.

Duty demands and liabilities to confiscation therefore cannot be upheld. (c) the plea on behalf of Nangellia group, made by Id. Advocate Sh.

Bulachandani, that they are manufacturer and weavers of fabrics and the prime quality of Gray fabrics were sold and the declarations made for the fabrics sent for processing by them was more than the costing thereof and being defective not of saleable standard the valuation of such of Gray cannot be of comparable fabrics being sold in the market as of prime quality has force. In any case, the valuation is being composed with market sale price of Gray fabrics, without any evidence of similar quality being on record. The traders were required to and gave the cost plus declaration. Mixing of lots and other commercial consideration went in the declaration made. The evidence similar grey quality receipts of M/s. Rupa was not on record. The proposed valuations cannot upheld. Different qualities of Gray are a commercial reality. That cannot be ignored by Revenue.

We find force in the arguments and the grounds taken by the appellants in this appeal. No demands on merits can be arrived at.

We find no mens rea or knowing concert with any alleged evasion and dealing with excisable goods knowingly that such goods excluded to confiscate is on record. We find no reason to visit them with Rule 209A penalties as arrived.

(d) The imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC as arrived cannot be upheld on facts herein and also the position in law not upholding of such 'joint read with' penalties, following the decision in case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 743 (T); Agarwal Pharmaceutical - ; Monica Electronics Ltd. - ; Punjab Recorder Ltd.- .

(e) Since no duty demand and or penalties or confiscation are being arrived at, the penalties under Rule 209A are not upheld in all cases as arrived in the impugned order.

3. In view of the findings arrived, we find no merits to uphold the order in these appeals. The order is set aside and the appeals allowed.