S.D. Jha, Member (J)

1. The appellants have filed this appeal against Order-in-Original dated 8-2 1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. By the said order the Collector of Central Excise- hereinafter called Collector demanded duty of Rs. 17,00,647.16 P. and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- against the appellants.

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric fans falling under Tariff Item No. 33 of the Central Excise Tariff in their factory situated at Roynagar, Banadroni, West Bengal and they hold a licence for the purpose. Sometime in 1982 the Central Excise Department learnt that during the period 1977 to 31-3-1981 the appellants had supplied raw materials for manufacture of component parts namely fan blade planks, down rods to different job workers on job charge basis and in turn received back finished products without discharging any Central Excise duty on the full value of the goods. The Department's case is that these products resulting from job work fell under Tariff Item 68. After the usual investigation the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, 15th Division, served show cause notice dated 26-8-1982 on the appellants calling upon them to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 17,00,647.16 P. be not realised from them and why penalty be not imposed. The appellants in their reply dated 4-12-1982 to the show cause notice submitted that they were not manufacturers of the products and that by merely supplying the raw material and getting some goods manufactured they had not become manufacturers of these products. It was further submitted that the job workers were totally independent units having no relation-financial, managerial or through employment of labour-with the appellants. It was also urged that j what was called aluminium blades was not fully manufactured product capable of use and sale in the market but were really blade planks punched from aluminium sheets which is neither a manufactured product nor goods falling under the Tariff Item 68. As regards the Down Rods, it was urged that even if they be considered as manufactured products the appellants were not liable to pay duty and the liability for such duty was on the parties who manufactured the Down rods in their factories if they were required to do so. The appellants were not responsible to explain the conduct of these parties. The appellants in short submitted that they were neither the manufacturers nor required to pay duty and comply with the formalities in respect of these products. They had not contravened any of the rules.

3. The appellants had specifically raised the plea of time-bar. They had urged that show cause notice issued on 26-8-1982 after expiry of more than one year from the period of demand -1977 to 31-3-1981 beyond the period of six months as stipulated under Section 11-A was time-barred and without jurisdiction and no action could be taken on the strength of such an invalid show cause notice. It was further urged that no allegation was made in the show cause notice to extend the period of six months to period of five years stipulated in Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. After following the usual procedure the CCE Calcutta passed order dated 8-2-1983 demanding differential duty and penalty as set out above. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal to the Tribunal.

4. At the hearing of the appeal Shri Ravindra. Narain, Advocate for the Appellants, invited our attention to the allegation in the show cause notice. He submitted that the only material allegation against the appellants in the show cause notice was that they had during the period 1977 to 31-3-1981 supplied raw materials for manufacture of component parts namely aluminium blade, Dowa rods, etc. to different jobbers on job charge basis and in turn received back the said finished product without discharging any Central Excise duty on the full value of goods falling under Item 68. On this allegation the appellants