BADOPALIA TEXTILE MILLS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon the appellant in terms of the provisions of Rule 209A.

(2.) I have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri M.H. Raval, ld. Consultant and Ms. Micheal, ld. Jt. CDR. As per the facts on record, the appellant was a job worker engaged in the process of heat setting the semi -processed fabrics. A search and seizures were conducted at the premises of the principal manufacturer M/s. Shantilal Textile Mills. As a course of further investigations, the factory premises of the appellant was also put to search and it was found that 2878.50 LMtrs. of fabrics sent by M/s. Shantilal Textile Mills were found in the said premises. Inasmuch as the said consignment was not covered by any Central Excise documents, the same was seized.

(3.) THE appellant's contention is that the show cause notice proposes imposition of penalty in terms of Rule 173Q whereas penalty stands imposed upon the appellant in terms of Rule 209A, as such the impugned order has travelled beyond the show cause notice. It is also further contented that the fabrics in question had just arrived in the appellant's factory and the appellant was waiting for the documents to arrive, when the same were seized. There is no evidence on record to show any role played by the said appellant in receiving fabrics without documents. No evidence relating to past clearances has also been brought on record. It is further argued that the total duty amount involved in the seized fabrics was to the tune of around Rs. 2000/ - and they were get the job charges to the extent of Rs. 600/ - only. As such the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon them is too harsh.