KHAWANI MILLS Vs. C.C.E. CHANDIGARH-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts in this case are that the staff of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh -II on information that t a large number of consignments of man - made fabrics we being cleared from the premises of the manufacturers at Surat without payment of Cental Excise duty and were being transported to Amritsar from Surat, on 17.10.98, searched the premises of the Transporter Companies viz., M/s. Gagan Freight Carriers, Amritsar and M/s. Delhi - Punjab Goods Carrier at Amritsar. Further, the godowns of these carriers were also searched on the same date and the statements of their Managers were recorded. On investigation, it was learnt that the two transporters were transporting processed man -made fabrics from Surat under facilitious addresses of consignors/consignees in coded alphabets and numerals in collusion and connivance with unknown manufacturers of Surat. The operators of this were deliberately engaged in a system which lead to anonymity among consignors/consignees, thus abating in evasion of duty on goods transported by them. Consequently, a large number of consignments were seized form the premises of the transporters and the proceedings were drawn against the consignors/consignees who came forward to claim the ownership of the seized bales in the consignments. These proceedings culminated in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh -II passing an Order -in -Original No. 119 -130/CE/CHD -II/2000/Pt.VI dt. 12.6.2000, in which he ordered for confiscation of certain consignments and the release or some others. He also imposed penalties of various amounts on the consignors/consignees whose goods were round to be cleared without payment of duty in violation of the provisions of Central Excise law as per the findings arrived at by the Commissioner in his order. The present appellants are one or the parties who laid claim on some consignments and who have been penalised by the Commissioner in his order. He has rejected the claim of the appellants as false/fraudulent and ordered such processed fabrics to be confiscated under Rule 173Q (1) (d) read with Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner in his order has further observed that the said goods were released provisionally to the party under Security bond/Bank Guarantee of Rs. 7,098/ -. the commissioner has ordered for the appropriation of this amount under Rule 209A and has further imposed a penalty of Rs. 28,000/ - on them under the same Rule.

(2.) The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner. The Stay Petition filed by the appellants is listed today for disposal. The appellants are not present and they have sent a communication dt. 15.9.2000 in which they have stated that they do not wish to appear either in person or through an authorised representative and hence their case may be disposed of on the basis of documents on record. I have heard Shri K. Panchatcharam, JDR for the Respondents. The appellants in their written Memorandum of Stay Petition have pleaded that the said fabrics were not liable for payment of Central Excise duty, as they were hand processed man -made shirting fabrics and hence, the question of illicit removal of excisable goods without payment of duty would not arise. I have considered these submissions. It is observed that the Commissioner in his order has arrived at the findings that the appellants could not establish their claim of ownership to the goods under consideration. They have been subject to a penalty under Rule 209A. This case involves a large number of facts which can only be analysed and gone into in details at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The appellants on the facts before me, however, have not been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour. They have also not filed any papers with regard to their financial position. In this view of the matter, I direct them to deposit the whole amount of Rs. 28,000/ - imposed on them as penalty on or before 10.4.20001. The matter will be called for reporting compliance on 12.4.2001. (Announced and dictated in the Court)