CHEMICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows :- M/s. Chemical Construction Company (P) Limited and O. V. Nambiar, its Managing Director were convicted for the offence under Section 9 (1) (i) of the Central Excise and Salt Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 7, 500/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21 months, in e. O. C. No. 51 of 1982 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court (E. O. 1 ). , Egmore, Madras. THE said conviction and sentence were confirmed in the appeal in C. A. No. 125 of 1992 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Madras . Hence, this Revision.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the filing of this Revision are as follows :- "the petitioner No. 1 - Company is engaged in the manufacture of machinery for Solvent Extraction Plants, Vanaspathy Plants, etc. On 2-5-1979 , the Superintendent of central Excise, Preventive Group, Madras IV Division inspected the premises and found that there were 69 workers along with 3 technical Personnel engaged in the manufacture of the said machinery without licence under Rule 174 of Central excise Rules, 1944. On 17-9-1979 , the Superintendent of Central Excise sent a show cause notice to the Company. On 15-2-1980 , the reply was sent on behalf of the Company. On 30-6-1980 , as requested by the Company, opportunity of personal hearing was given to the representative of the Company. THE statements and reply obtained from the persons on behalf of the Company would consistently show that the company was not aware of the provisions of taking out a licence, however, the quantum of duty liability was disputed. After considering the statements and submission made on behalf of the company, ultimately the Collector of Central Excise passed orders imposing penalty on the Company. Subsequently, the respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners. Though initially two charges were framed, since the respondent did not press in respect of the second charge, the trial court discharged the petitioners in respect of the said charge and convicted the petitioners in respect of the first charge, as stated above. On being aggrieved over the judgment of the trial court, the petitioners filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court and the same was dismissed. THErefore, the petitioners are before this Court.'

(3.) BEFORE embarking on the discussion with reference to the question referred to above, we shall now go into the factual aspects.