TATA ELECTRONIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 116/87 dated 18.12.1987 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore confirming the confiscation of 141 Numbers of PCB assemblies valued at Rs. 6 lakhs under seizure, under Rule 52A/173Q (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has granted redemption on payment of Rs. 1 lakh. He has also ordered for confiscation of Tempo bearing No. MED 6612 under seizure, under Section 115 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. However, he has granted redemption of the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. He has also demanded duty amount of Rs. 16,85,626/ - in terms of various demands raised in the show cause notice dated 10.7.1987 under Rule 9(2) of C.E. Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs.

(2.) THE facts of the case leading to the detection is that the Central Excise Officers attached to Preventive Lalbagh Division, Bangalore during the course of their conducting road checks on Hosur Road, stopped a tempo bearing Regn. No. MED -6612 carrying certain central excisable goods on 17.11.1986. The said tempo was found carrying 8 boxes containing PCBs as per documents made available to the occupants of the vehicle by appellants. On examination, they found boxes containing PCB assemblies while the contents of the same had been indicated in the material Gate Pass No. 1947 dated 17.11.1986 issued by the said factory as Printed Circuit Boards packed in 2 boxes and in material Gate Pass No. 1952 dated 17.11.1986 as Printed Circuit Boards in 6 boxes. The Officers found that duty was payable on the said goods. However, there was no Central Excise Gate Pass evidencing the payment of duty on the said boxes. The documents in possession of the tempo driver were material gate pass No. 1947/17.11.1986 and No. 1952/17.11.1986 and Form No. 39 bearing Sl. No. 10109 dated NIL issued by appellants for carrying the said goods and therefore the goods were seized which were valued at Rs. 6 lakhs along with the said tempo valued at Rs. 50,000/ - under a Mahazar dated 17.11.1986.

(3.) THE statement of the Driver Shri Nanda Kumar, Sri A. Thomas, Cooliee of Tempo were also recorded. Statement of Shri Gopalakrishnan Manager (Tech.) was also recorded. Further statement of Shri Y.N. Unwalla, Accounts Officer was also recorded. Shri Y.N. Unwalla in his statement clearly stated that these goods were meant for M/s. HAL/BEL, Hyderabad against their orders for supply of TEC -22 and TEC -16D consoles; that they were to make complete supply of the said goods by 31.3.1986; that they felt that they could not supply the goods within the said date and had informed the Range Officer that despatch of goods might not be made before 31.3.1986 even though excise duty was paid on the full value of consoles and spares vide their letters TEDS/F/465, TEDS/F/466 and TEDS/F/467 dated 28.3.1986; that they had also informed in the said letters that subsequent despatches would be under intimation to the Range, without payment of duty, since duty had already been paid; that they had started the factory during 1980 -81 in Peenya with Central Excise Licence No. 36/81 and subsequently they had built their own factory at Electronics City with Central Excise Licence No, 3/86 and were also in the process of shifting their factory from Peenya; that their machine shop was still in Peenya and they were following Rule 56B Procedure for completion of their equipment in their new factory; that the spares and equipment were accounted for in R.G. 1 and no separate accounting was made in respect of spares; that their customers were M/s. HAL, BEL, IAF, NSIL, Ministry of Defence etc.; that they were also doing job work for M/s. GCEL, but the goods were cleared on payment of duty; that as far as he knew, they had one order from M/s. HAL, Hyderabad for supply of only spares for TEC -16 consoles; that he was on leave on 17.11.1986 and was unable to say about removal of goods without payment of duty; that excisable good should be cleared on proper excise documents; that they had paid excise duty of Rs. 26,65,837.35 and had no intention to evade payment of duty amounting to Rs. 90,000/ - involved in this case.