IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 1527 of 1996 M/S GYAN PROCESSING MILLS V/S CEG APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS Mr. JP JOSHI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RISHABH SANCHETI for Mr. V.K. MATHUR, for the respondent Date of Order : 25.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- This petition has been filed against the order of the learned Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Annexure-2). Facts of the case are that the Central Excise Officers of the concerned range, visited the firm of the petitioner in November, 1992 and found, the Dyeing Padding Machine, fitted with one electric motor, with its starter and complete connections, and also had the “V-Belt” installed in a room shed. Photos were taken, and then the matter was taken up, and ultimately the material/goods found there were seized. It was found that the petitioner willfully suppressed the fact of processing of the cotton fabrics with the aid of the power, without the central excise registration, and without paying central excise duty of Rupees nineteen thousand and odd, and also without observance of the Central Excise Rules, in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and also certain rules. A show cause notice was issued, as to why the excise duty as mentioned in the demand be not levied, and the goods seized may not be confiscated, and why the penalty may not be imposed. To this the petitioner submitted the reply, then, the petitioner was given personal hearing on 22.07.93. The learned Collector ultimately passed the order Annexure-1, confirming demand of Excise Duty, and ordered confiscation of the goods, which goods were given to the petitioner, on the petitioner exercising the redemption option on payment of Rs.25,000/-, and penalty of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The learned Tribunal, after duly considering the matter, and appreciating the evidence, including statement of Jeetmal, and the finding recorded by the Collector, and it was found, that the duty was payable on the fabrics, and consequently the order of the adjudicating authority, demanding the duty was confirmed. However, the redemption 2 fine was reduced to Rs.10,000/- and the amount of penalty was also reduced to Rs.2,000/-. Against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders. Apart from the question as to whether the appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner, to have recourse to Section 35-G, in any case, findings recorded by the learned authorities below, are pure findings of fact, as such, we do not find any infirmity in the order, confirming the demand of excise duty. So far as penalty is concerned, the learned Tribunal has already given very substantial relief to the petitioner, and there is no further ground for interference, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, we do not find any force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /vij/ 3