1995 (7) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Somesh Arora, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - These two appeals are against the orders of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna. 2. The facts briefly, leading to these appeals are as follows. The appellant manufactures motor vehicle chassis. It was found that on 29-2-1984 gate passes had been issued after payment of duty for clearance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicable was the duty at the enhanced rate. 3. Shri G. Shiva Dass, advocate for the appellant, argues that there was no intention to evade duty. This had been admitted by the Additional Collector in his order when he said that there was no mala fide intention and therefore did not impose penalty. In view of this, therefore, the appellant could not be said to have intended to evade duty. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assis and the gate passes issued, before 5 P.M. on 29-2-1984. We note that the Additional Collector has himself found that there was no mala fide intention. We therefore agree that the failure to remove the trucks was not with a view to evading duty. Hence confiscation of these goods under rule 173Q is not sustainable and is set aside. 6. It is however equally not in dispute that the chassis we....