1993 (11) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on I, Nagpur has confirmed demand of Rs. 2,98,925/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the ground that the appellant had brought in duty-paid goods into the factory after one year of initial removal and cleared the same after testing without payment of duty and so Rule 173H would not be applicable and Central Excise duty should be paid on the said consignment. 2. Let me first outline the brief background to the subject appeal; the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Wires and Cables falling within Chapter 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff and they received back certain quantity of electric wires and cables for testing purposes under Rule 173H; these goods had been earlier cleared under GP's after payment of duty. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earing. I have also perused the impugned order. The question for consideration here is whether the order of demand and penalty as above is sustainable in law or not. 5. Appellants have contested mainly as under :- (i) once the matter has been decided by the competent authority, it cannot be adjudicated again. The Asstt. Collector has already decided the issue vide his order dated 31-3-1992 and so readjudication by the impugned order is bad in law. (ii) in the earlier order a penalty of Rs. 1000/- was imposed for the very same goods; again a penalty of the same amount has been imposed. There cannot be double penalty for the same offence. (iii) demand under Rule 9(1) and Section 11A is not justified, since duty-paid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rders is not bad in law by itself. However, as pointed out by the appellant, imposition of penalty for a second time is bad in law and accordingly the penalty has to be set aside. Further, no penalty is imposable in view of the cited case of K.R. Steel Union - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 375 (T) also. 7. As regards the demand for duty also, the Asstt. Collector has fallen into error in concluding that the appellant had brought the goods back after the expiry of the prescribed period and without obtaining extension from the prescribed authority. Rule 173H has undergone several amendments. Prior to May 1989, the Rule had only two sub-rules (1) and (2) and there were no proviso clauses. By Notn. 21/89 dt. 10-5-1989, the first proviso clause was i....