1990 (1) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 pieces Chlorine Gas Cylinder Valves valued at Rs. 38,824.00 on the ground that those were not accounted for in the R.G, 1 Register although fully manufactured. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 14-2-1983 for alleged contravention of provisions of Rule 173G(4) read with Rule 53 and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules. The case was adjudicated by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise vide his order-in-original No. CPO/DC/8/85 dated 6-6-1985 by which he confiscated the seized 422 pieces of Chlorine Gas Cylinder Valves under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. Since the said goods were provisionally released to the appellants on 16-10-1982 on execution of B-11 Bond with security of Rs. 9,706.00 and the goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ISI authority on 19-10-1982, 22-10-1982, 4-11-1982 and 10-11-1982. He argued that the inspection by the ISI quality control inspection staff was compulsory under the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to Rules 4,7 and 15 of the said rules. He also argued that the ISI staff carried on inspection at two stges. The first stage of inspection was carried on to cover Items I to V of Rule 7 and the second stage inspection by ISI inspector was to cover Items VI to VIII of the said rules. Shri Kar argued that without ISI inspection and certification by ISI inspector, the valves did not become marketable and hence not fully manufactured. There was, therefore, no question of entering the same in the R.G. 1 regi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtmental representatives argued that the valves and the seal nuts (spare parts of valves) were fully manufactured before ISI inspection and hence those were required to be entered in the R.G. 1 register before inspection by ISI. On this point, he relied on the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi [1982 (10) E.L.T. 92] (supra). According to him, ISI inspection was not the criterion for entering the product in R.G. 1 register. He argued that the goods could be entered in R.G. 1 register and if on quality control inspection the ISI staff rejected any piece, the same could be taken back for re-processing and again entered in the R.G. 1 register. Shri Jain drew our attention to invoices, delivery challan, inspection certificate etc....