TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses on 3-2-1986, and scrutiny of the records and excise documents, it was revealed that the appellants had manufactured 2018.430 kgs of snuff in 1980-81 and 138.800 kgs during 1981-82 and had cleared the same without payment of duty. The duty evasion was worked out at Rs. 12,943.33. On revisit on 4-2-1986, they found that the accounts were not maintained for a long time, and hence seized 741 kgs of snuff which was under process. In the statement of the partner recorded thereafter, he admitted both the lapses. Show Cause Notice dt. 1-8-1986 was therefore served, and in reply dt. 28-8-1986, the appellants denied the charges and pleaded that the factory was within the physical control of the department and that the stock taking was being done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive years, and the claim for duty from 1-8-1981 to 31-3-1982 which is within the period of five years, is beyond the normal period of six months, and with Department exercising physical control over the factory, the extended period criteria could not stand applicable. The Ld. advocate refers to the decision of the Tribunal in LML Ltd. v. Collector - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 434 (Tribunal). 4. Shri Krishnamurthy, the Ld. JDR, has however supported the order and has submitted that the appellant has admitted the fact of removal without payment of duty and has accepted the mistake. He also pleads that the appellant has also not maintained proper accounts. He has referred to the decision of the Tribunal in Roxy Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Collector, 1991 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, extended period may not be applied. Even if the ratio of that order is applied with caution as there may be some ways to evade duty, as the officer does not remain present throughout the day, then some cogent evidence for suppression or fraud has to be ascertained. The alleged admission of non-payment of duty may be a circumstance, but the same cannot be taken as a conclusive proof to invoke extended period. The decision referred to by the Ld J.D.R., also refers to certain other evidence brought on record. No such evidence is available, and no explanation is given how, the matter could not be detected during yearly checking of the excise registers. The extended period therefore, has to be held as not available. 7. In the result the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
