2000 (1) TMI 608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abad. The Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur had confirmed the duty of Rs. 13,62,146.22 and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Ghaziabad Unit belonged to the same appellants and in fact these were the two divisions of the same Company. The adjudicating authority had treated them as sister units. The appellants are importing glass tubing in running length and were manufacturing glass tubes at their Bhiwadi Unit, which were used to connect the glass shells and such glass shells connected with the glass tubes were transferred to Ghaziabad unit, where Black & White Television Picture/Monitor tubes were manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly when the picture tubes were for the monitor. According to the JDR, there was a clear intention to evade payment of duty as has been discussed in the adjudication order. At Bhiwadi unit, they were not keeping separate accounts for tubes of television picture tubes and for monitor picture tubes. He relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Allied Resins & Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 196 (Tribunal). In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel submitted that at best, the appellants could be charged with the contravention of Rule 223 of the Rules, where the maximum penalty was only Rs. 2,000/-. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. The appellants have admitted that the duty had already been deposited and they ....