TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (4) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a godown situated at 4/2, Ramdhan Khan Lane, Calcutta on 24-2-1984 but gave an option to the appellants for taking release of the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- in addition to the duty at the rate applicable to marine plywood of prime quality. 2. When the appeal was posted for hearing, Shri K.K. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the appellant referred the points raised in the appeal and contended that the search was ab initio illegal and the confiscation of the goods and demanding of duty thereon was irregular. He pointed out that the goods were originally merely detained by one officer but seized by another officer after a gap of nearly eight months. He referred to the letter dated 8-8-1984 issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the kind and quality of the goods would appear to have been met. In any case, without prejudice to the arguments advanced by him, he submitted that even if there had been any violation of the said provisions it was only procedural in nature and at the most a nominal penalty under Rule 210 could have been sufficient. There had been absolutely no evidence at all about removal without payment of duty. He referred to the decision of the Cegat Special Bench in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Jenson & Nicholson which had been rendered citing the Supreme Court decision in Rukmanand Bhairoliya v. State of Bihar reported vide AIR 1971 SC 746. It had been held by the Supreme Court that the findings of Revenue authorities based on pure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no markings. These were described in the letter as Marine Plywood. In the adjudication order also, the main thrust of the finding is that the goods did not have markings. The Additional Collector had held that when no gate pass had been produced to show that duty had been paid on the plywood sheets without marking "it will appear that the plywood in question have been removed without paying duty and observing other Central Excise requirements." He has then concluded that the investigation seemed to have shown that the seized plywood without markings cannot be connected with any documents/records of payment of duty. He has held that there has also been contravention of provisions of Rule 51(i)(c) and (d) and that in the absence of evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng (sic) character of the goods was established by them with reference to the stock register and Excise gate passes. If this contention was not correct, the Additional Collector should have discussed the defence plea and spelt out his reasons for rejection of the same. Regarding the non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 51(i)(c) and (d) in respect of the markings they had contended in their written submission before the Additional Collector that in the Calcutta godown, the goods were found in loose condition because the packages had been opened. They had contended that it is not mandatory to put the mark on each and every sheet. The Rule in question only lays down that after any excisable goods had been packed and made ready for remo....