Page 167 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part
P. 167

2020 ]   A.R. TRADING COMPANY v. COMMR. OF C. EX. (APPEALS-II), BANGALORE   389

               be alleged on the basis of statements of dealers to conclude that goods cleared
               in the past also similar to the goods tested - Demand for period prior to 5-2-
               2006 barred by limitation. [para 6.2]
                       Confiscation, redemption fine  and  penalty -  Test report obtained  on
               21-9-2006, apparently in favour of the department, cannot be applied retrospec-
               tively and to the goods cleared before the test report - Consequently, confisca-
               tion and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation not justified, no mala fide
               intention of the appellants being evident - However, Department free to col-
               lect the applicable duty on the said goods - Extended period being not invoka-
               ble, penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 set aside - Penalty
               imposed on Appellant Company under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
               and penalty imposed on Shri T.C. Vijayan of Usha Traders, Madurai under
               Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, also set aside. [para 6.3]
                       Samples - Testing of - Result of test to have only prospective applica-
               tion - Rule 56 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. [para 6.2]
                                                                   Appeal partly allowed
                                             CASES CITED
               Aggarwal Metal Works — 1982 (10) E.L.T. 689 (G.O.I.) — Referred ................................................... [Para 3]
               Bee-Am Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (167) E.L.T. 534 (Tribunal) — Referred ............ [Para 3]
               Bojaraj Textiles Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector — 1990 (45) E.L.T. 559 (Mad.) — Referred .......... [Para 3]
               Collector v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments — 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) — Referred .................... [Para 4]
               Collector v. Pattani Chemicals — 1998 (98) E.L.T. 582 (S.C.) — Referred .......................................... [Para 3]
               Commissioner v. C.M.S. Computers Pvt. Ltd. — 2005 (182) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.) — Referred ............. [Para 4.1]
               Doddaballapur Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector — 1992 (61) E.L.T. 539 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 3]
               Essma Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001 (134) E.L.T. 262 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]
               I.C.I. (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2003 (160) E.L.T. 405 (Tribunal) — Referred ................................ [Para 3]
               Mathania Fabrics v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Referred ............................. [Para 4.1]
               Padmini Products v. Collector — 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) — Referred........................................... [Para 4]
               Pattani Chemicals v. Collector — 1991 (56) E.L.T. 253 (Tribunal) — Relied on........................ [Paras 3, 6.2]
               Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector — 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) — Referred ......... [Para 4]
               Salasar Dyg. and Ptg. Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner —2009 (235) E.L.T. 93 (Tribunal)
                    — Referred ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 4.1]
               Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector — 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) — Referred ............................. [Para 4]
                       REPRESENTED BY :     Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
                                            Shri P. Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR), for the
                                            Respondent.
                       [Order per : P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)]. - Briefly stated, the facts of
               the case are that M/s. A. R. Trading Company (Branch), Bangalore, the “Appel-
               lants” (Proprietor Shri Abdul Wajid) is a small-scale unit established in 2003, are
               engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Synthetic Filament Yarn of a denier
               of 600 and above falling under the Chapter Heading 5404 of CETA, 1985. It was
               alleged, on the basis of an investigation, conducted by DGCEI, that the Appel-
               lants have manufactured only Polypropylene Multi-Filament Yarn at their facto-
               ry  and cleared the same  as “PPMF Yarn” classifying the same under Chapter
               Heading 5404 of CETA, 1985, instead of 5402; they have wrongly availed exemp-
               tion available under Notification No. 7/2003-C.E. and 30/2004-C.E., during the
               relevant period 2003-04 to 2006-07 (up to 8-8-2006); they have evaded payment of
                                    EXCISE LAW TIMES      1st May 2020      167
   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172