Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1986 (11) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y premises of one M/s. Unique Autogears, Jhotwara. It was observed that the unit was engaged in the manufacture of pump driving gears, falling under T.I.68 with the aid of power on its own account and also on job basis for M/s. Eicher Good Earth Ltd., Alwar (Applicants). 149 pieces of pump driving gears, fully manufactured, were lying in the factory and were seized under a reasonable belief the same were liable to confiscation under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and for contravention of the provisions of Rules 53, 56-C and 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri Govardhan Lal Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. Unique Auto Gears admitted their manufacture on job charges and the removal of 8165 pieces of pump driving gears during t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lication has been made raising the following questions of law:- (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to hold that the applicants have cleared the goods without permission and without payment of excise duty? (ii) Whether the Tribunal should have held and erred in law that M/s. Unique Auto Gears (whose clearances in the financial year did not exceed Rs.4 lakhs) were not entitled to exemption from whole of duty under Notification No.105/80, dated 19-6-1980? (iii) Whether the Tribunal should have held and erred in law in upholding the imposition of penalty for breach of rule 56-C of Central Excise Rules, 1944? (iv) Whether the learned Tribunal should have held and erred i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Excise Rules, 1944. 7. It is seen from the contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicants that M/s. Unique Auto Gears, whose clearances did not exceed Rs.4 lakhs, were entitled to exemption from whole of the duty under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980. The question would, therefore, arise whether the applicants should be deemed to have cleared the goods which were permitted without payment of duty and whether the exemption granted to M/s. Unique Auto Gears would have the effect of absolving the applicants' of the liability to pay duty as manufacturers despite their applying for permission under Rule 56-C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The applicants had supplied raw materials to M/s. Unique Auto Gears ....