1979 (3) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e liable to be classified as cotton fabrics assessable to duty at higher rates and value for assessment was to be determined in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The available goods were seized and the petitioner-firm was called upon to explain why penal action should not be taken against them for mis-declaration of goods and why duty short-paid not be recovered. 2. The petitioner-firm took the stand that they are not the owners of the fabrics and hence not responsible for mis-declaration about the exact percentage of contents of different fabrics. Therefore seizure of the goods is illegal. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, however observed that the fabrics which so apparently revealed the quality ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issued to the petitioner-processor was as good as one issued to the ultimate owners. However, the Board reduced the fine and penalty amount to Rs. 15,000/- each. 4. In the revision application, dated 11-8-1978 it is submitted that the fine and penalty totalling Rs. 30,000/- is a harsh punishment. The petitioner firm is entitled only to processing charges and had no interest in the fabrics which continued to be the actual property of the weaving mills. The Board erred in holding that the petitioner-firm stood to gain. It is further submitted that the petitioner-firm cannot be held responsible for any mix-declaration and have signed agreements with the owners of the fabrics to the effect that they will not undertake responsibility for decl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... documents were tendered in evidence along with the appeal that was filed before the Board and copies thereof have also been annexed to the present Revision Application. 6. The learned counsel conceded that he has nothing to say in respect of the fine in lieu of confiscation as well as the higher duty liability, as the petitioners have been reimbursed by the parties concerned in pursuance of the agreement and conditions of processing referred to and set out in para 2 above. The petitioners' plea is that the penal action to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- is not warranted and not reimbursible in terms of the agreement. The counsel argued that there is no evidence led at the time of adjudication to show that there was any mens rea on the part o....