Shital Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Collector of C. Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal is against the order-in-original no. v-adj (22) 15-1/83/305 dated 5-3-1985 (7/85) passed by the collector of central excise, bombay-ii. acting on certain intelligence that the appellants are removing processed fabrics in excess of the quantities specified in the gate passes by wrong totalling of the length of each piece with a view to evading duty on the excess quantity, the officers of preventive in headquarters, on 22-1-1983, intercepted a consignment of processed fabrics cleared from the appellants' factory carried in a tempo. on check of the gate pass and delivery challan it was revealed that 58 pieces of fabrics admeasuring 925.80 lm were indicated in these documents and duty was paid only on this quantity. but when physical verification was carried out, they found 1225-80 lm, thereby showing an excess quantity of 300 lm being cleared without the cover of the gate passes. hence these fabrics were seized. on check of the quantities of processed fabrics lying in the bonded store room, the officers noticed 222.30 lm pieces of processed fabrics duly packed kept therein, whereas the excise records showed 'nil' balance. hence the aforesaid fabrics being not accounted for, were also placed under seizure. thereafter, the statements of shri k.g. shah, authorised signatory of the appellants firm was recorded. shri k.g. shah in his statement admitted that his brother anant giridharlal shah and cousin shri dilip amratlal are the partners, and he is the authorised signatory and he is looking after the production and clearance of processed fabrics from the appellants factory. he is also a partner of indian velvet factory. the sales in the shop of m/s. indian velvet factory are looked after by his brother shri anant giridharlal shah. he admitted to have signed the blank gate pass and has not checked up the correctness of the total quantity of fabrics indicated in the gate pass. however, the excise clerk shri desai in his statement dated 22-1-1980 admitted that it was his mistake in totalling the l metres of individual pieces and he might have missed some figures, while working on the calculator. he also owned responsibility for not showing the correct description of certain quantities of fabrics. thereafter a summons was issued to shri k.g. shah for production of the shop records of m/s. indian velvet factory. his statement was also recorded on 2-6-1983, wherein he produced the records called for and revealed that m/s. indian velvet factory was started as a manufacturing unit for producing grey man-made fabrics and also for trading in grey and processed fabrics. they were getting the entire processing work done by m/s. shantilal dyeing and printing works (appellants) until the end of 1976. they did not make purchase of processed man made fabrics and their entire sale of processed man-made fabrics were out of grey fabrics processed at m/s. shantilal dyeing and printing works from the end of 1976. the said indian velvet factory also sell grey man-made fabrics and yarn. thereafter the records of m/s. shantilal dyeing and printing works and those of m/s. indian velvet factory were scrutinised and it was alleged that sale of processed man-made fabrics at the shop of m/s. indian velvet factory are far in excess of receipt of duty paid processed fabrics cleared from the appellants factory and on that basis, duty evasion against the appellants factory was alleged. it was also alleged that purchase of grey fabrics against sale of grey fabrics by m/s. indian velvet factory far exceeded and the excess purchase in addition to their own manufacture was alleged to account for the excess sale of processed fabrics by m/s. indian velvet factory, who have received them from the appellants' factory without payment of duty, by manipulating the totals of individual pieces and showing less quantity in the gate passes, as noticed in the case of interception of one consignment.2.2 a show cause notice was issued alleging that (i) the appellants factory removed 3,39,328.08 lms of processed man-made fabrics without payment of duty (ii) removed 1225.80 lms of processed fabrics without cover of a proper gate pass and without proper accountal in their records and (iii) failed to account for 222.30 lms of man-made fabrics in the rg 1 records and (iv) the vehicle tempo used for transporting 1225.80 lms of fabrics belonging to indian velvet factory being liable to confiscation because of its usage in transport of the said fabrics.2.3 in the adjudication proceedings held by the collector he ordered confiscation of 1225.80 lms & 222.30 lms of processed fabrics but allowed redemption on payment of fine of rs. 3,000/- and rs. 500/- respectively. he held the liability to confiscation of the tempo but ordered appropriation of a sum of rs. 2,500/- towards the redemption fine in terms of the bond executed for provisional release of the vehicle. he also confirmed the demand for 300 lm of fabrics found in excess not covered by gate pass, seized in transit and also on a quantity of 3,39,328.08 lm (minus deductions allowed in respect of certain arithmetical errors) processed fabrics alleged to have been cleared in excess of the quantities covered by gate pass. a penalty of rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on the appellants.4. shri shroff, the ld. advocate mainly pleaded on the following grounds: 4.1 the alleged modus operandi of removing excess quantities of fabrics under gate passes by showing the total quantity less, while keeping the number of pieces and the length of individual pieces correctly on the delivery challans is not established. though the entire file of delivery challans and gate passes for the relevant period have been taken over, the department has not made any allegation of discrepancy in the totals of delivery challans vis-a-vis the quantity cleared under gate passes. though removal of 300 lms in excess of the quantity shown in the gate pass is not disputed, it is purely on account of totalling mistake in the delivery challans committed by the excise clerk and no mala fides or any modus operandi can be inferred from this solitary instance. moreover, the admitted position even by the collector is that in these gate passes, dyed variety has been shown as printed variety carrying higher duty and hence there was no revenue angle.4.2 222.30 lm were found in the finishing room; they were not ready for delivery. hence confiscation of these goods is not called for.4.3 though excess of 300 lm was accepted, since the total duty paid was on the basis of printed fabrics, which is more as compared to the duty payable on dyed fabrics actually found, they are not liable to confiscation and liable to further duty.4.4 as regards the duty demand for an amount of rs. 3,22,119.08 he pleaded that when delivery challans and gate passes have been taken over and scrutinised, the department could not find any discrepancy to confirm that any excess quantities have been cleared under any of the gate passes vis-a-vis the corresponding delivery challans. it is not open for the department to presume any clandestine removals from the independent factory of the appellants based on the sale records of a trading concern. on this ground itself, the demand is to be set aside.4.5 moreover, they have given year-wise accountal of the alleged excess sales under the various heads; such as sale of grey fabrics, which have been taken as processed fabrics, purchase of processed fabrics from outside other than those got processed in the appellants factory, resale of rejected goods, diversion of export fabrics for local sales.they have also produced detailed statements explaining the discrepancies alongwith evidences. these have not been properly considered by the collector and excepting allowing certain arithmetical errors to be deducted, he has mechanically conformed the demand. in this context, he refers to their detailed reply to the show cause notice and the various statements reconciliating the discrepancies leaving only a balance of about 9000 lm, which is attributed on account of cutting and sale in retail.5. heard shri singh. he refers to the findings of the collector on the submission made in reply to the scn to point out that the records have been manipulated and hence reconciliation figures attempted are not accepted. he however, does not have objection, if the matter is remanded with such directions as may be called for.6. after hearing both the sides, we find that on the main question relating to the demand for duty on the past clearances, we are seriously handicapped; because both the sides have not produced before us the copies of the various ledgers and copies of invoices etc. hence we are left with no other alternative but to remand the case, with directions as may be called for, as per our analysis of the collector's findings in the context of the available records before us. we discuss this aspect elsewhere in this order.7. first we take up the short questions, which could be finally decided by us.7.1 the excess of 300 lm noticed from the consignment intercepted on 22-1-1983 is not disputed. hence duty is payable on this quantity. duty demand is therefore confirmed. even though 925.83 lm in this consignment has been held to be duty paid by the collector, it is covered by an incorrect gate pass and removal thereof is not reflected in the records. hence, liability to confiscation of the entire consignment of 1225.80 lm and redemption fine thereof is also upheld.since tempo belongs to indian velvet factory, who have not filed any appeal before us, we are not recording any findings thereon.7.2 the quantity of 222.30 lm is reported to have been found in the bonded store room. but the appellant pleaded that it was found in the finishing room. no evidence has been produced to support the contention and in any case, it is admittedly finished stock, calling for accountal. hence confiscation thereof and redemption fine in this regard are upheld.8. now coming to the major demand, preliminary plea of the appellants that they cannot be fastened with duty liability on the basis of records of third party namely indian velvet factory, is difficult to accept, because of the following undisputed factual position. (i) shri k.g. shah, who is the authorised signatory of m/s. shital dyeing & printing, is also a partner in m/s. indian velvet factory. it was he who produced the records of m/s. indian velvet factory. m/s. shital dyeing is entirely managed by shri k.g. shah with regard to production and clearances though it is reportedly owned by two partners, who are the brother and cousin of shri k.g. shah. in the circumstances, his statement that they were getting the fabrics processed only from m/s. shital dyeing cannot be brushed aside. hence correlation of clearances from m/s. shital with sale figures of m/s. indian velvet is well justified. we therefore uphold this approach. moreover, his brother anant girdhar shah is also a common partner in both shital dyeing and indian velvet. (ii) but there are certain areas, where collector appears to have not properly considered the defence and they are identified below. only on account of this we considered it necessary for remand of the case.9. m/s. shital dyeing have tried to account for the difference by giving explanation under following categories. (i) some of the gate passes issued in the name of indian velvet factory are not taken into account. (ii) quantity of processed fabrics rejected by customers which were subsequently sold. this quantity has been taken twice by the department. (iii) goods sold in grey condition have been wrongly taken by the department as processed goods. (iv) quantity of processed fabrics purchased from outside parties by m/s. indian velvet factory. (vi) m/s. indian velvet factory had cleared processed fabrics for export under bond from time to time from m/s. shital dyeing. but about 10,000 lmts. have been diverted by them for home consumption after payment of duty under t.r. 6 challans. (vii) m/s. indian velvet factory have also got fabrics processed from m/s. darshana velvet dyeing and printing works.10.1. the collector in his findings admits that as regards goods returned by customers and goods purchased from outside (statements 2,5,7,9, 12,14,15,16, 21, 23, 24,25 annexure to the reply to s.c.n.) the relevant records - case books for rejected goods and purchase registers and ledgers show the names of parties and quantity as mentioned in the statements. but the width in respect of the parties mentioned therein were not mentioned. moreover, details of such goods could not be verified upto october, 1978, since the concerned records were not among the seized records. this is the reason stated for rejection of these statements. the particulars as available in the records seized and kept with the department are verifiable and could not have been manipulated. hence reconciliation produced in defence duly supported by the entries in the case book for returned goods and purchase registers, should have been accepted, giving the benefit of doubt. this evidence could not have been rejected for not mentioning the width. hence the quantity taken as excess sales over duty paid receipts calls for modification on this ground.10.2 as regards arithmetical errors and calculation mistakes, we do not propose to interfere with the findings of the collector.10.3 as regards figures of goods received under gate passes by m/s.indian velvet factory but not taken into account by the department for the year 1978. the collector has observed that the gate passes referred to by the appellant were found to have been issued in the names of different parties and not in the name of indian velvet factory. hence, in the absence of those documents being produced before us, we are to confirm this findings. it is however open for the appellants to agitate the issue before the collector, if the gate passes in question were actually issued in their name, by producing copies thereof.10.4 as regards the quantity of grey fabrics taken as processed (reference to statements 3, 6, 10,18,19 and 22 of the written submissions before the collector) the collector has given his positive findings only in regard to 19 invoices to the effect that they are not for grey fabrics. hence, it is open for looking into the other invoices either for acceptance or for rejection of their claim depending on whether they relate to grey goods or otherwise. this finding also calls for de novo consideration, in the light of the invoices in the possession of the department for giving a positive finding on the other invoices. a final view on the quantity accounted may have to be taken thereafter.11. in the result, in as far as demand for the quantity of 3,39,328.08 lm is concerned, we deem it necessary to remand the case back to the collector, to consider the demand in the light of our above observations. it is desirable that prior to de novo adjudication, an attempt is made at reconciliation by the appellants document wise and make them final submission before the collector, who could get this verified from all the documents in the deputy collectors and thereafter fix a date for personal hearing. thereafter, he may pass orders in accordance with law quantifying the demand for duty, if any payable, finally.12. in view of our above order of remand in the terms set out as above, we also allow the liberty to the collector to redetermine the quantum of penalty, after taking into account the extent of duty involved and other violations to the extent confirmed by us. hence we set aside the penalty of rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellants with these observations.13. since this is an old case, we deem it proper that the collector may complete the adjudication within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. the appellants also should co-operate in reconciliation as indicated above for enabling the collector to adhere to the time frame.

Judgment:
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. V-Adj (22) 15-1/83/305 dated 5-3-1985 (7/85) passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II. Acting on certain intelligence that the appellants are removing processed fabrics in excess of the quantities specified in the gate passes by wrong totalling of the length of each piece with a view to evading duty on the excess quantity, the officers of preventive in headquarters, on 22-1-1983, intercepted a consignment of processed fabrics cleared from the appellants' factory carried in a tempo. On check of the gate pass and delivery challan it was revealed that 58 pieces of fabrics admeasuring 925.80 LM were indicated in these documents and duty was paid only on this quantity. But when physical verification was carried out, they found 1225-80 LM, thereby showing an excess quantity of 300 LM being cleared without the cover of the gate passes. Hence these fabrics were seized. On check of the quantities of processed fabrics lying in the bonded store room, the officers noticed 222.30 LM pieces of processed fabrics duly packed kept therein, whereas the excise records showed 'nil' balance. Hence the aforesaid fabrics being not accounted for, were also placed under seizure. Thereafter, the statements of Shri K.G. Shah, Authorised Signatory of the appellants firm was recorded. Shri K.G. Shah in his statement admitted that his brother Anant Giridharlal Shah and cousin Shri Dilip Amratlal are the partners, and he is the authorised signatory and he is looking after the production and clearance of processed fabrics from the appellants factory. He is also a partner of Indian Velvet Factory. The sales in the shop of M/s. Indian Velvet Factory are looked after by his brother Shri Anant Giridharlal Shah. He admitted to have signed the blank gate pass and has not checked up the correctness of the total quantity of fabrics indicated in the Gate pass. However, the excise clerk Shri Desai in his statement dated 22-1-1980 admitted that it was his mistake in totalling the L metres of individual pieces and he might have missed some figures, while working on the calculator. He also owned responsibility for not showing the correct description of certain quantities of fabrics. Thereafter a summons was issued to Shri K.G. Shah for production of the shop records of M/s. Indian Velvet Factory. His statement was also recorded on 2-6-1983, wherein he produced the records called for and revealed that M/s. Indian Velvet Factory was started as a manufacturing unit for producing grey man-made fabrics and also for trading in grey and processed fabrics. They were getting the entire processing work done by M/s.

Shantilal Dyeing and Printing Works (appellants) until the end of 1976. They did not make purchase of processed man made fabrics and their entire sale of processed man-made fabrics were out of grey fabrics processed at M/s. Shantilal Dyeing and Printing Works from the end of 1976. The said Indian Velvet Factory also sell grey man-made fabrics and yarn. Thereafter the records of M/s. Shantilal Dyeing and Printing Works and those of M/s. Indian Velvet Factory were scrutinised and it was alleged that sale of processed man-made fabrics at the shop of M/s. Indian Velvet Factory are far in excess of receipt of duty paid processed fabrics cleared from the appellants factory and on that basis, duty evasion against the appellants factory was alleged. It was also alleged that purchase of grey fabrics against sale of grey fabrics by M/s. Indian Velvet Factory far exceeded and the excess purchase in addition to their own manufacture was alleged to account for the excess sale of processed fabrics by M/s. Indian Velvet Factory, who have received them from the appellants' factory without payment of duty, by manipulating the totals of individual pieces and showing less quantity in the gate passes, as noticed in the case of interception of one consignment.

2.2 A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that (i) the appellants factory removed 3,39,328.08 LMs of processed man-made fabrics without payment of duty (ii) removed 1225.80 LMs of processed fabrics without cover of a proper gate pass and without proper accountal in their records and (iii) failed to account for 222.30 LMs of man-made fabrics in the RG 1 records and (iv) the vehicle tempo used for transporting 1225.80 LMs of fabrics belonging to Indian Velvet Factory being liable to confiscation because of its usage in transport of the said fabrics.

2.3 In the adjudication proceedings held by the Collector he ordered confiscation of 1225.80 LMs & 222.30 LMs of processed fabrics but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively. He held the liability to confiscation of the tempo but ordered appropriation of a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards the redemption fine in terms of the bond executed for provisional release of the vehicle. He also confirmed the demand for 300 LM of fabrics found in excess not covered by gate pass, seized in transit and also on a quantity of 3,39,328.08 LM (minus deductions allowed in respect of certain arithmetical errors) processed fabrics alleged to have been cleared in excess of the quantities covered by gate pass. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on the appellants.

4. Shri Shroff, the ld. advocate mainly pleaded on the following grounds: 4.1 The alleged modus operandi of removing excess quantities of fabrics under gate passes by showing the total quantity less, while keeping the number of pieces and the length of individual pieces correctly on the delivery challans is not established. Though the entire file of delivery challans and gate passes for the relevant period have been taken over, the department has not made any allegation of discrepancy in the totals of delivery challans vis-a-vis the quantity cleared under Gate Passes. Though removal of 300 LMs in excess of the quantity shown in the Gate Pass is not disputed, it is purely on account of totalling mistake in the delivery challans committed by the excise clerk and no mala fides or any modus operandi can be inferred from this solitary instance. Moreover, the admitted position even by the Collector is that in these gate passes, dyed variety has been shown as printed variety carrying higher duty and hence there was no revenue angle.

4.2 222.30 LM were found in the finishing room; they were not ready for delivery. Hence confiscation of these goods is not called for.

4.3 Though excess of 300 LM was accepted, since the total duty paid was on the basis of printed fabrics, which is more as compared to the duty payable on dyed fabrics actually found, they are not liable to confiscation and liable to further duty.

4.4 As regards the duty demand for an amount of Rs. 3,22,119.08 he pleaded that when delivery challans and gate passes have been taken over and scrutinised, the department could not find any discrepancy to confirm that any excess quantities have been cleared under any of the gate passes vis-a-vis the corresponding delivery challans. It is not open for the department to presume any clandestine removals from the independent factory of the appellants based on the sale records of a trading concern. On this ground itself, the demand is to be set aside.

4.5 Moreover, they have given year-wise accountal of the alleged excess sales under the various heads; such as sale of grey fabrics, which have been taken as processed fabrics, purchase of processed fabrics from outside other than those got processed in the appellants factory, resale of rejected goods, diversion of export fabrics for local sales.

They have also produced detailed statements explaining the discrepancies alongwith evidences. These have not been properly considered by the Collector and excepting allowing certain arithmetical errors to be deducted, he has mechanically conformed the demand. In this context, he refers to their detailed reply to the show cause notice and the various statements reconciliating the discrepancies leaving only a balance of about 9000 LM, which is attributed on account of cutting and sale in retail.

5. Heard Shri Singh. He refers to the findings of the Collector on the submission made in reply to the SCN to point out that the records have been manipulated and hence reconciliation figures attempted are not accepted. He however, does not have objection, if the matter is remanded with such directions as may be called for.

6. After hearing both the sides, we find that on the main question relating to the demand for duty on the past clearances, we are seriously handicapped; because both the sides have not produced before us the copies of the various ledgers and copies of invoices etc. Hence we are left with no other alternative but to remand the case, with directions as may be called for, as per our analysis of the Collector's findings in the context of the available records before us. We discuss this aspect elsewhere in this order.

7. First we take up the short questions, which could be finally decided by us.

7.1 The excess of 300 LM noticed from the consignment intercepted on 22-1-1983 is not disputed. Hence duty is payable on this quantity. Duty demand is therefore confirmed. Even though 925.83 LM in this consignment has been held to be duty paid by the Collector, it is covered by an incorrect gate pass and removal thereof is not reflected in the records. Hence, liability to confiscation of the entire consignment of 1225.80 LM and redemption fine thereof is also upheld.Since tempo belongs to Indian Velvet Factory, who have not filed any appeal before us, we are not recording any findings thereon.

7.2 The quantity of 222.30 LM is reported to have been found in the bonded store room. But the appellant pleaded that it was found in the finishing room. No evidence has been produced to support the contention and in any case, it is admittedly finished stock, calling for accountal. Hence confiscation thereof and redemption fine in this regard are upheld.8. Now coming to the major demand, preliminary plea of the appellants that they cannot be fastened with duty liability on the basis of records of third party namely Indian Velvet Factory, is difficult to accept, because of the following undisputed factual position.

(i) Shri K.G. Shah, who is the authorised signatory of M/s. Shital Dyeing & Printing, is also a partner in M/s. Indian Velvet Factory.

It was he who produced the records of M/s. Indian Velvet Factory.

M/s. Shital Dyeing is entirely managed by Shri K.G. Shah with regard to production and clearances though it is reportedly owned by two partners, who are the brother and cousin of Shri K.G. Shah. In the circumstances, his statement that they were getting the fabrics processed only from M/s. Shital Dyeing cannot be brushed aside.

Hence correlation of clearances from M/s. Shital with sale figures of M/s. Indian Velvet is well justified. We therefore uphold this approach. Moreover, his brother Anant Girdhar Shah is also a common partner in both Shital Dyeing and Indian Velvet.

(ii) But there are certain areas, where Collector appears to have not properly considered the defence and they are identified below.

Only on account of this we considered it necessary for remand of the case.

9. M/s. Shital Dyeing have tried to account for the difference by giving explanation under following categories.

(i) Some of the gate passes issued in the name of Indian Velvet Factory are not taken into account.

(ii) quantity of processed fabrics rejected by customers which were subsequently sold. This quantity has been taken twice by the department.

(iii) Goods sold in grey condition have been wrongly taken by the department as processed goods.

(iv) Quantity of processed fabrics purchased from outside parties by M/s. Indian Velvet Factory.

(vi) M/s. Indian Velvet Factory had cleared processed fabrics for export under bond from time to time from M/s. Shital Dyeing. But about 10,000 LMts. have been diverted by them for home consumption after payment of duty under T.R. 6 challans.

(vii) M/s. Indian Velvet Factory have also got fabrics processed from M/s. Darshana Velvet Dyeing and Printing Works.

10.1. The Collector in his findings admits that as regards goods returned by customers and goods purchased from outside (statements 2,5,7,9, 12,14,15,16, 21, 23, 24,25 annexure to the reply to S.C.N.) the relevant records - case books for rejected goods and purchase registers and ledgers show the names of parties and quantity as mentioned in the statements. But the width in respect of the parties mentioned therein were not mentioned. Moreover, details of such goods could not be verified upto October, 1978, since the concerned records were not among the seized records. This is the reason stated for rejection of these statements. The particulars as available in the records seized and kept with the department are verifiable and could not have been manipulated. Hence reconciliation produced in defence duly supported by the entries in the case book for returned goods and purchase registers, should have been accepted, giving the benefit of doubt. This evidence could not have been rejected for not mentioning the width. Hence the quantity taken as excess sales over duty paid receipts calls for modification on this ground.

10.2 As regards arithmetical errors and calculation mistakes, we do not propose to interfere with the findings of the Collector.

10.3 As regards figures of goods received under gate passes by M/s.

Indian Velvet factory but not taken into account by the department for the year 1978. The Collector has observed that the gate passes referred to by the appellant were found to have been issued in the names of different parties and not in the name of Indian Velvet factory. Hence, in the absence of those documents being produced before us, we are to confirm this findings. It is however open for the appellants to agitate the issue before the Collector, if the gate passes in question were actually issued in their name, by producing copies thereof.

10.4 As regards the quantity of grey fabrics taken as processed (reference to statements 3, 6, 10,18,19 and 22 of the written submissions before the Collector) the Collector has given his positive findings only in regard to 19 invoices to the effect that they are not for grey fabrics. Hence, it is open for looking into the other invoices either for acceptance or for rejection of their claim depending on whether they relate to grey goods or otherwise. This finding also calls for de novo consideration, in the light of the invoices in the possession of the department for giving a positive finding on the other invoices. A final view on the quantity accounted may have to be taken thereafter.

11. In the result, in as far as demand for the quantity of 3,39,328.08 LM is concerned, we deem it necessary to remand the case back to the Collector, to consider the demand in the light of our above observations. It is desirable that prior to de novo adjudication, an attempt is made at reconciliation by the appellants document wise and make them final submission before the Collector, who could get this verified from all the documents in the Deputy Collectors and thereafter fix a date for personal hearing. Thereafter, he may pass orders in accordance with law quantifying the demand for duty, if any payable, finally.

12. In view of our above order of remand in the terms set out as above, we also allow the liberty to the Collector to redetermine the quantum of penalty, after taking into account the extent of duty involved and other violations to the extent confirmed by us. Hence we set aside the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellants with these observations.

13. Since this is an old case, we deem it proper that the Collector may complete the adjudication within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The appellants also should co-operate in reconciliation as indicated above for enabling the Collector to adhere to the time frame.