BINDU S. MEHTA Vs. COMMISSISONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS filed these appeals against the order -in -original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot dated 28 -1 -1993 vide which penalty of 4 lakhs each was imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on the appellants.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that appellants Smt. Purnima K. Sharma and Smt. Bindu S. Mehta constituted a partnership firm. M/s. Aum Cosmetics and Shri Sandeep J. Mehta was Attorney of M/s. Aum Cosmetics. M/s. Aum Cosmetics were engaged in the manufacture of Telecom powder. During the period 1985 -86 and 1986 -87, it was found that M/s. Aum Cosmetics shown less clearances than the actual clearance. A show cause notice was issued to M/s. Aum Cosmetics and the present appellants. After adjudication a demand of Rs. 8,22,812 was confirmed on the M/s. Aum Cosmetics and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on M/s. Aum Cosmetics and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were imposed on the present appellants. 1

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the Smt. Bindu S. Mehta and Smt. Purnima K. Sharma submits that both appellants were partners of M/s. Aum Cosmetics and there is no evidence on record to show that they have knowledge or reasonable belief that the goods in question were liable to confiscation. He submits that even no enquiries were made from these appellants. He submits that as both the appellants have no knowledge of the clearances of the goods without payment of duty. Hence, they cannot be held liable under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. For this, he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok India Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 659 (Tribunal) and in the case of Standard Surfactants Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 675 (Tribunal).