1983 (6) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II to file the present appeal. M/s. Indopharma Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd., have filed the cross-objection against the same order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 26.7.1982. Therefore, the appeal and the cross objection have been heard together and are being dealt with together for passing the common order. 2. After explaining the facts of the case, it has been contended in the appeal that there was suppression of fact on the part of M/s. Indopharma Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. SPASMINDON PAEDIATRIC DROPS were classifiable under Item 14 of the Central Excise Tariff, and they did not pay the duty thereon. Therefore, the Assistant Collector has invoked 5 years of time limit under the then....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Assistant Collector's order and pointed out that the Assistant Collector has thoroughly condemned the behaviour of the manufacturers. Yet when the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II has filed the appeal, the manufacturer has been described in the appeal as the reputed concern. Apart from this, the manufacturers were under physical control of the State Excise Authorities, and it was only on 22-11-1977 that they came to know of the correct implications of the budget changes brought about by the Finance Bill of 1976, under which the manufacturers product SPASMINDON PABDIATRIC DROPS went out of the purview of Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 administered by the Maharashtra State Excise Authorities an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e stated that the Assistant Collector had levied a penalty of Rs. 200/- on the manufacturers to justify his invoking the time limit of 5 years under Rule 10. The Collector (Appeals) had upheld this penalty. But there was no justification for the same, as there was no mens rea on the part of the manufacturers. Besides, the order of penalty appeared to be an after thought, as this part of the order was written in hand. Accordingly, the learned representative requested that the order of penalty should be set aside and the cross-objection in this respect be allowed. 4. We have examined the submissions on both sides. We are unable to accept the contention in the appeal that there was willful mis-statement on the part of the manufacturers. As ....