LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-205

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PREVENTIVE UNIT MADRAS 600 034 Vs. BUILDERS INDUSTRIES THIRUVOTTIYUR MADRAS

Decided On June 08, 2007
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PREVE Appellant
V/S
BUILDERS INDUSTRIES THIRUVOTTIYUR MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in C. A. Nos. 20 to 23 of 1992 which had arisen out of a finding in C. C. No. 1680 to 1683 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. 2) Egmore, Madras-8.

(2.) THE complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate (E. O. 2), Egmore, Chennai was preferred by the Assistant Collector of central Excise, Chennai against the accused for an offence punishable under sections 9 (1) (a) (i), 9 (1) (b) (i) and 9 (1) (b) (b) (i) (four counts)of Central excise and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the violation of payment of excise duty to the goods manufactured and fabricated by the accused. Admittedly, the first accused is engaged in the fabrication of steel structural for BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S. F. India limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited. THE second accused is the Managing Partner of the first accused. On the basis of the authorisation issued by the Assistant collector of Central Excise Department Preventive Unit conducted a raid on 6. 9. 1982 in the premises of the first accused and the Officers of the Central excise conducted a random check up of the accounts maintained by the accused firm for the year 1979 and it was brought to the light that the value of the clearance of goods for the year 1979 had exceeded the prescribed exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs. According to the accused, the defence taken before the trial Court was that they were manufacturing the steel structural fabrications either out of the raw materials supplied by others or out of their own raw materials. According to the complainant, the first accused manufacturer had cleared the goods without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without payment of duty.