TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.6.1980 was issued with reference to the said goods, calling upon the appellants to show cause why the same should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed. After some further investigations another notice, dated 27.6.1981 was issued under which the appellants were directed to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 1,27,412.40 should not be demanded in respect of manufacture and removals during the period 15.6.1979 to 30.11.1979 and why duty at an appropriate rate should not be demanded for the period 8.6.1978 to 7.6.1979 (for which period no records were produced by the appellants). The appellants replied denying the charges. On adjudication, the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut under order dated, 20.1.1982 confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before that date. But we may note that the Supreme Court in the Empire Dyeing case, held, on a consideration of first principles, that the process of dyeing was a process of manufacture even before the Amending Act and that the amendment only made clear what was the true legal position. 4. Shri Jain further contended that the demand for duty was, in any event, barred by time The lower authorities have rejected this contention on the basis that since the appellants had not taken out a licence, they were guilty of suppression and hence the larger period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act was available. It should be noted that neither in the notice dated, 20.6.1980 nor in the notice dated, 27.6.1981 was any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of a circular letter. Shri Jain submits that the very allotment of a despatch No. (486) to this letter would indicate that the same was specially sent to the appellants. The argument of the appellants is that the authorities acted upon the declaration filed and advised the appellants of the simplified accounts to be maintained by them and thus there can be no question of suppression or mis-statement. We may note that with reference to this argument, the Collector has observed in his order as follows :- In the circumstances, the so-called advice said to be given by the Inspector has no force of law. The law is very clear on the subject and there was no ambiguity with regard to their duty liability. The circular about exemption from lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period for which demand has been confirmed being 15.6.1979 to 30.11.1979, the show cause notice, dated 27.6.1981 was obviously barred by time. Hence the orders of the lower authorities so far as they related to the confirmation of the demand for duty for the period 15.6.1979 to 30.11.1979 will have to be set aside. 7. The above argument would not apply as regard the goods seized and with reference to which duty was demanded to be paid as well as confiscation ordered subject to redemption. But on this issue, Shri Jain submits that the Board, while accepting that no duty was payable on the dyeing of man-made fabrics, erred in confirming the confiscation of the entire quantity seized. But we see from the show cause notice 20.6.1980, that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
