Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
K. Prakash Anand, D.C. Mandal, G.P. Agarwal, JJ.
R.G. Nagori and Sons -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise -Respondent
Order No. 768/88-C Appeal No. E/1289/85-C E/Misc/266 & 324/88-C, 768 of 1988, E/1289 of 1985, 266 of 1988, 324 of 1988
Decided On : 31-10-1988
K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)
1. On a visit by one of the departmental officers on 10th September, 1982, it was found that appellants were manufacturing sodium sulphide falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68. A Show Cause Notice was issued for contravention of Rules 9,52-A, 173-B, 173-C, 173-G and 174 read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for failure to take out Central Excise Licence, to maintain statutory records, to declare the value of goods and to clear the goods on payment of Central Excise duty during the year 1979-80, when appellants exceeded the production exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs, thereby evading duty of the order of Rs. 39,290.72.
In this order, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 37,779.52 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 750/-. It is against this order that the appellants are before this Bench.
2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant, for appellants, and Shri LC. Chakravarti, JDR, for the respondent.
3. At the out set, Shri Gopal Prasad moved a misc. application seeking permission to file copy of letter dated 20th June, 1977 addressed to the Inspector Central Excise, Bikaner which, it was stated, would show that jurisdictional Central Excise Officer was visiting appellants factory and was aware of "its continued activity".
Shri Chakravarti, JDR did not oppose the application.
Accordingly, the misc. application was allowed.
4. Shri Gopal Prasad submitted that he was not disputing on merit, the liability to duty. He confirmed his arguments to limitation.
Briefly these arguments were :-
(a) The extended period of limitation for raising of demand of duty was not applicable in the case as the show cause notice did not allege any suppression of facts or fraud. In this connection the following case law was cited :-
(i) MANU/CE/0194/1984 : 1985 (19) ELT 307 (Tri.) - MAC Laboratories (P) Ltd: v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.
(ii) MANU/CE/0112/1987 : 1987 (29) ELT 330 (Tri.) - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. Pioneer Industries, Thane.
(iii) MANU/CE/0083/1984 : 1984 (18) ELT 14 (Tri.) - Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corprn. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.
(b) factory of the appellants was located in a remote place in the interior, and they could not, therefore, keep abreast with the day to day changes in notifications;
(c) departmental officers visited the unit from time to time and they were fully aware of its existence;
(d) there was no intention whatsoever wilfully to evade duty. Both before and after the year 1979, the production exemption limit was Rs. 30 lakhs and appellants had presumed that in 1979 also the same exemption limit applied; and
(e) it was also submitted that Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which had been invoked for raising demand of duty, was not at all applicable because it could be invoked only in the case of clandestine removals, which was not the case here.
5. In the circumstances, it was urged, there was no case of at all for imposition of penalty which should also be set aside, along with the demand of duty.
6. Responding, Shri Chakravarti submitted briefly that ignorance of law is no excuse. It was added that even though the show cause notice might not, in so many words, allege suppression of facts, but the ingredients of the offence attracting the extended period of demand of duty were included in the show cause notice.
In this connection the attention of the Bench was invited to the case of British India Corporation Ltd., Dhariwal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - MANU/CE/0276/1985 : 1986 (25) ELT 727 (Tribunal). It was emphasised that even non-filing of classification list has been held to amount to suppression of facts.
7. The letter filed by way of additional evidence, it was submitted, was not at all relevant as the Inspector was not the-competent officer for purposes of necessary intimation to the Department. In this connection Shri Chakravarti relied on the orders of the Tribunal No. 45
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
