2001 (12) TMI 733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....risdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh) and Surat (coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate of Central Excise, Surat). The Commissioner, Chandigarh issued four show cause notices to these two parties in respect of their branches at Amritsar and Surat. The show cause notices alleged that the applicants transported excisable goods in connivance with the manufacturers thereof, from Surat to Amritsar, despite their knowledge that the goods were not duty-paid and hence liable to confiscation. The parties contested this allegation. In adjudication of the dispute, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh found the parties guilty of "aiding and abetting in the clandestine transportation of processed fabrics ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e goods are excisable and, if so, whether they are duty paid or not. The liabilities of the parties are only under the Contract Act and not under the Central Excise Act. Ld. counsel further submits that all the packages in question were labeled and declared by the consignors as art silk fabrics, which were known to the applicants as non-excisable. In the circumstances, there was no valid reason for the Central Excise authorities to suspect that the applicants were indulging in clandestine transportation of non-duty-paid excisable goods. Ld. counsel claims to have strong prima facie case, in these applications. 3. Ld. SDR Ms. Krishna A. Mishra submits that, under Rule 209A, transporters of manufactured goods have a liability to ensur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sel's argument that the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction over the Surat branches of the applicants. 4. In rejoinder, ld. advocate cites the Tribunal's decision in Inland Road Service v. CCE [1992 (60) E.L.T. 571] in support of his contention that, in the absence of evidence that the applicants had knowledge of non-duty paid character of the goods transported by them, there was no reason for invoking Rule 209A for penalizing them. 5. I have examined the submissions. As regards the penalty imposed on the Surat branches of the two parties, it prima facie appears that the relevant show cause notices issued from the Chandigarh Commissionerate and, for that matter, the adjudication of the SCNs by the Commissioner of Cent....