A.C. ENTERPRISES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants made a request for adjournment. We find that the case was adjourned many times at the request of the appellants and the appeal is pending since 1989, therefore, the request for adjournment is declined. Heard the learned SDR and perused the appeal papers.

(2.) The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order whereby the duty of Rs. 12,92,482.61 was confirmed in respect of 203 air -conditioners which were cleared without payment of duty. 5 air -conditioners were also ordered to be confiscated and allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on the appellants. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellants manufactured and cleared air -conditioners without payment of duty. The contention of the appellants in the appeal memo is that the allegation of fraud, misdeclaration of facts cannot be alleged against the appellants. Mere inaction or failure on the part of the appellants to pay duty does not mean that there has been a fraud or misdeclaration of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The contention of the appellants in the appeal memo is that there is no evidence on record that the appellants had actually manufactured the air -conditioners alleged to have been clandestinely cleared without payment of duty.

(3.) The contention of the Revenue is that at the time of visit by the excise officers, the records lying in the factory were taken into possession and scrutiny of the records show that the appellants filed declaration for availing small scale exemption notification. The examination of the records show that the appellants cleared the air -conditioners to various customers without payment of duty and wrongly availed the benefit of small scale exemption as the total clearances of the goods exceeds the limit of value prescribed under the small scale exemption notification for the year 1982 -83. Therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 64/83 dated 1.3.83 for the subsequent year. The contention of the Revenue is that in these circumstances the demand was rightly confirmed.