TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (1) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period from 28-12-1971 to 30-4-1973 on the manufacture and removal of aluminium circles of thickness exceeding 1.22 m.m. without payment of duty and utilising them in their factory in the manufacture of aluminium utensils. 3. This allegation was based on the fact that on their visit to the factory of the appellants on 29-3-1973, Central Excise Officers had found the thickness of such circles to be between 1.42 m.m. to 1.63 m.m. consequently they seized 639.100 kg. of such aluminium circles, and 625.600 kg. of aluminium circles given the shape of semi-finished and finished aluminium buckets. 4. The seizure case was decided by the Dy. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh under his order C. No. V(27)DC/15/Seizure/77/3912-15 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entail substantial injury and denial of justice to them. 8. The appellants inter alia also contended that the samples were not drawn from the godown of the appellants but from the rolling Section of their factory. There was no warrant for presuming that the circles which were no longer in existence must have been manufactures in thickness exceeding 1.22 m.m. Since the quantity of circles produced and cleared during the period from January, 1973 to March, 1973 had already been included in the order of Dy. Collector, such goods should be excluded from the proceedings in this case. 9. Consequently, on 23-6-1978, representative samples of aluminium circles given the shape of semi-finished/finished buckets drawn from the seized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs on the appellants under Rule 173-Q ibid. 13. Shri Bharat Das, Advocate, appeared before the Board at the personal bearing granted on 7-1-1981 along with two Directors and one Technical Asstt. of the appellant firm. In reiterating the written submissions in the memorandum of the appeal, supplemented by other letters dated 4-2-1980, 13-3- l 980 end 24-4- 1980, he also handed over a written note dated 7-1-1981 for consideration of the Board. 14. During the personal hearing, the appellants also produced samples of Cut Sections of their aluminium buckets in support of their contention that in the ``Deep Drawing Process", the thickness of aluminium circles considerabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had admittedly restricted the demand of duty in this case pertaining to the period from 28-12-1971 to 31-12-1972, his action in basing the demand on the alleged analysis of the samples drawn from the goods seized on 29th and 30th March, 1973 (i.e. admittedly subsequently) would not be relevant to the period prior to the drawal of the samples. 19. In support of this contention they referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills and the decision of the Government of India in the case of New Era Hindustan Woollen Mills, Ludhiana. 20. The appellants also urged that during the relevant period there had been a number of visits of the Central Excise Officers to the factory of the appellants. The appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re to the other areas should be brought to the notice of the Test House. They had also pointed out to the Collector that by the "Deep Drawing Process" the thickness increased at the edges. However, the Board finds from the records that while sending samples to the NTH, this request of the appellants which contained a crucial submission was not brought to the notice of the Director of the N.T.H. 25. The facts on record also confirm that on 12-12-1978, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Rohtak had also conducted an experiment in the factory of the appellants to find out the veracity of the appellants' contention on this issue when he noticed that the thickness of the edges of two circles of 1.10 m.m. thickness after "Deep Drawing....