TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (2) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both cases is common, both the appeals are being decided by this consolidated Order. 2. It was alleged against the Mills that they had cleared iron and steel flats exceeding 5 mm and 10 mm in thickness, with width 25 4 mm, weighing 4,540 kgs. and width 51 mm, weighing 5,618 kgs. without accountal in their excise records, without payment of excise duty and without issue of any gate passes. 3. The case against Murari Lal was that his truck was used in the transport of the aforementioned iron and steel flats without accountal, without payment of duty and without cover of any gate passes and, therefore, the truck was liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 as made applicable to Central Excise (under Section 12 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e vehicle, Murari Lal, who was not at all present at the material time, or was a party to the loading and transport of the goods in question, cannot be held responsible for transport of the excisable goods (without proper gate passes). In view of this, it was pleaded that the owner should be absolved of the charges in the same way as ordered by they Collector in respect of the driver. 8. The Advocate also filed a copy of the judgment passed by the Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffar Nagar, in whose court Murari Lal was prosecuted, but was acquitted. 9. The Board has carefully considered all the facts of the case, the submissions made in the written memoranda of appeals as well as those urged at the time of personal hearing. 10. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Lal was known to the Department because not only at the time of seizure did the officers find two bilties in their name but also subsequently both of them had written to the Department vide their letters both dated 791973. 15. In the circumstances, it was necessary on the part of the Collector to have issued show cause notices also to Steel Trading Company and Sunder Lal in terms of Rule 233A before ordering any confiscation. 16. There is also no finding in the Collector's order to the effect that Steel Trading Company and Sunder Lal were not the real owners of the goods. 17. The Board, therefore, has to accept appellants' contention that the order of confiscation was bad in law. It is accordingly vacated. The fine of ₹ 5,000....