PRINCE MULTIPLAST PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order No. CI/674-76/WZB/2003, dated 11-3-2003 passed by the Customs. Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), Regional bench, at Mumbai, insofar as the same confirms the fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs on the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1, a Private Limited Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of plastic crates which are used for transportation of soft drinks and other items. It is the case of the petitioners as stated in the petition that the crates are very bulky in nature and they require a very large space for storage. The petitioners manufacture plastic soft-drink crates for supply to M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and during the relevant period, that is, July 1999 onwards, there was a considerable slow down in lifting of the finished goods by the said customer. Due to this, the petitioners had accumulated a huge inventory of plastic crates in the petitioners' factory. Consequently, during the month of December 1999, the petitioners were holding stock of more than 11,00,000 plastic crates. According to the petitioners, the stock of crates lying in the factory in the month of December 1999 was ten times more than the normal inventory of crates maintained by the petitioners.

(3.) It is further the case of the petitioners that, on 2-12-1999, a huge fire accident had occurred in the factory of one of the plastic units viz., M/s. Super-maid belonging to the Time Packaging Group, situated in the vicinity of the petitioners' factory in which the entire factory, plant, machinery, stock and building were destroyed. Since, the stock of finished goods lying in the factory of the petitioners was highest at an unprecedented level leaving practically no room for the movement of men and materials within the factory and in the outside compound of the factory, there was risk of destruction of goods and injury to men in case of unforeseen and untoward incident. The petitioners, therefore, first moved maximum material outside the factory building in the open compound and thereafter, approached the owners of the neighbouring premises, M/s. Navneet Publications (India) Ltd., who had vacant premises in the plot next to the petitioners' plot. After obtaining such permission, the petitioners shifted around 70,000 plastic crates to the plot of M/s. Navneet Publications on emergency basis. According to the petitioners they had intended to include the said premises in the factory of the petitioners, however, considering the emergency situation, the petitioners had shifted the goods without gelling the said premises in the petitioners' ground plan under the impression that the formality of inclusion of premises in the ground plan and taking permission for shifting the goods can be done on post facto basis considering the grave situation. However, before further action could be taken for inclusion of the neighbouring premises in the ground plan and obtaining permission to store the finished goods at the said premises, the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the said neighbouring premises and later on, the petitioners' premises and seized the said 70,000 plastic crates shifted thereto. The officers also seized 87,500 plastic crates lying in the open factory compound on the alleged ground that since the said compound is common for two factories, both belonging to the petitioners, the goods stored in the said common compound were to be considered as stored in the premises of the petitioners' other unit situated in the same factory compound. The officers also visited the petitioners' factory premises on 8-12-1999 and seized one truck load with 4215 plastic crates which were leaving the factory. However, it is not necessary to refer to the said aspect in detail as the Tribunal has decided the issue with regard to the crates found in the truck in favour of the petitioners.