TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (3) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The appellants are manufacturers of glass "chatons". They had initially started production in March, 1976. During a visit to the factory premises by the Central Excise officers on 6-2-1981, (glass) chatons valued at ₹ 6,612.50 were sized as excisable under Tariff Item 23A of the first Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter "C.E.T"). In the Show Cause Notice issued in June, 1981, the appellants were asked to show cause why duty amounting to ₹ 4,42,821.51 payable on goods cleared since 1975-76 should not be demanded from them. 4. The appellants claimed before the Collector that the chatons were nothing but (glass) beads and therefore exempted from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey did not obtain a central excise licence or follow the procedural requirements. 8. Even otherwise, the appellants have submitted, the chatons were exempt from Central Excise duty under Notification Nos. 185/62-C.E., dated 3-11-1962 and 64/79-C.E., dated 1-3 1979. These goods were also covered under the exemption provided by Notification. No 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 (as amended, from time to time). 9. Moreover, the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, in his Trade Notice 18-C.E./80 (Glass and Glassware) dated 12-2-1980 had accepted that any glassware classifiable under Item 23A (4) CET, "If manufactured from other articles of glass (glassware) which have already paid duty under the same tariff item 23A(4) would not be ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... products etc. They had also consulted the local Range Officer who had verbally advised that their product was exempt from payment of duty and no Central Excise licence was required for manufacture of glass chatons. 13. In view of these submissions the appellants have contended that the order of confiscation of the seized chatons and imposition of penalty for non-payment of duty and non-observance of Central Excise procedure was illegal and unjust as the appellants had acted on a bona fide belief that their goods were exempt from central excise duty. 14. The Board has carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions made by the appellants in the written memorandum of appeal and during the course of personal hearing b....