TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 22nd March, 1975, Sulphuric Acid used in the manufacture of Super Phosphate fertiliser is fully exempt from payment of duty subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector that the Sulphuric Acid is so used. On the basis of the records maintained by the Appellants themselves regarding the raw materials in their raw material account RG16 the department has found that during the period of October, 1982 to June, 1986, in some of the months, the Appellants had exceeded the consumption of Sulphuric Acid over 40% of the Super Phosphate manufactured by them during the said months. Accordinly, the proceedings were started by issue of a show cause notice and they were asked to show cause as to why a duty of Rs. 60,559.38 be not recovered f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cid used in the manufacture of Super Phosphate. He also points out that in that Supplement itself, it is mentioned that 40% of the Sulphuric Acid is calculated on the basis of 100% acid strength whereas they use actually 98% to 99% of the acid strength of the Sulphuric Acid. He, therefore, mentioned that in some months the percentage of Sulphuric Acid has been more than 40%. At the same time, he points out that on the basis of monthly data available in their reply to the show cause notice. it is apparent that the consumption of Sulphuric Acid has been far less than 40%. He has also pointed put that during the entire period of October, 1982 to June, 1986, which is the subject, matter of this proceedings, the overall percentage of Sulphuric A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass Works Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1987 (32) E.L.T. 430 (Tribunal) - Global Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh He has pleaded that the demand of duty, in any case, is time barred inasmuch as the Appellants were maintaining the statutory records of RG 16 which was always open to the inspection by the department and, in fact. they had been submitting regular quarterly returns on that basis. Therefore, invoking longer period of five years stipulated in Section 11A would not be justified. In that view, the total demand would be time barred. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Advocate submits that there is no warrant for imposing any penalty. 5. The learned J.D.R. Shri S.N. Ghosh for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
