SHRI DINESH KHIMAVAT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for waiver and stay of collection of Rs.50,000/ - as penalty imposed on the appellant in terms of rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(2.) THE manufacturer M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries who are engaged in the manufacture of plastic, moulded parts of domestic mixer falling under chapter sub -heading 8509.00 of the CETA. In October, 1992 searches were conducted and it was found by the authorities that the manufacturer has sold the goods manufactured by them to 67 parties in a clandestine way. For that purpose they could also obtain certain kachcha challans from the premises of the factory. The statement recorded from various persons one of which is a partner namely Pratik D. Jain, admits inter alia as reflected in paragraph 8 of the order that they sold the goods to various persons including the address of the purchaser of mixture grinder. Incidentally the purchaser is a company by name Kanchan Kitchen Aid Pvt. Ltd. The appellant is a director of the said company. When statements were recorded of the appellant he had denied having purchased the same from the manufacturer. The show cause notice has been given charging various persons including the appellant of violating rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, penalties of various amounts have been imposed on various purchasers. Hence this appeal.

(3.) SHRI D.H. Shah, advocate appearing for the applicant states that the finding given by the adjudicating authority lacks precision. He would argue that neither the show cause notice nor the findings show that ingredients of rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules have been complied with. He would state that the manufacturer being an SSI unit he may not have been coming within the ambit of exemption category. The goods alleged to have been purchased may come within the exemption category. If that were to be so, the order does not come in finding to the effect of the SSI ememption. Shri Shah therefore argues that in the absence of the same how the knowledge that the goods were liable for confiscation or liable for penalty is established so as to attract the provisions of rule 209A. Smt. Reena Arya, SDR, would argue that Pratik Jain who is one of the partners of the manufacturer has given the statement that he has sold the goods to the appellant. Statement of the co -noticee is binding on the adjudicating authority.