Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1996 (12) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of Rule 174 in terms of Notification No. 111/78-C.E., dated 9-5-1978. The Supdt., Technical, Central Excise who adjudicated the matter had held that the appellants were required to file the declaration and were not exempted from the operation of Rule 174 of the Rules. Para 2 from his decision is reproduced below :- "2. I find from the records that the instant offence case against the party was booked for non filing of the declaration as required under notification No. 111/78-C.E. (as amended) to the jurisidictional Central Excise authorities. The Advocate in reply to the show cause notice has contended that they are manufacturer of the sewing machines which are exempt from the operation of the payment of Central Excise duty levia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Rules. The appellants had not filed any declaration and had not applied for licence as their goods were unconditionally exempted from duty. The adjudicating authority has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 100/- which had been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It was his contention that there was no malafide and no penalty should have been imposed. In this connection, he referred to the Apex Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) (S.C.) = ECR C 321 S.C. (Excise and Customs Reporter Compilation, AIR 1965 S.C. 531 (V-52) in which the Apex Court had held that penalty was the result of a quasi-judicial proceedings and will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party acted deliberate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana that under the new Tariff (1) overlock sewing machines (2) Chain stitch sewing machine (3) flat lock sewing machine and (4) Zig Zag sewing machine were classifiable under heading No. 84.52 of the CETA, 1985. Under Heading No. 84.52 of the new tariff sewing machine other than book sewing machines of heading No. 84.40; furniture bases and covers specially designed for sewing machines; sewing machines needles were covered. We find that description under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. is only "sewing machines and parts thereof." Further, the embroidery machines and bag closure machines are not known in common parlance as sewing machines. 8. The matter was detected on th....