TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he total value of such clearances during the period 26-9-1979 to 19-3-1981 amounted to ₹ 1,84,272.98 paise. The appellants have urged that they are small scale unit. Since the goods manufactured by them fall under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, their goods were exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notifications No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979 and 105/80-C.E., dated 16-9-1980. They were also exempted from the licensing control under Notification No. 111/78-C.E., dated 9-5-1978, as amended by Notification No. 2/81-C.E., dated 17-1-1981. They stated that they had filed necessary declarations and their total clearances never exceeded 80% of the exemption limit under the aforesaid notification. The appellants have admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich were examined by the concerned Excise authorities, and there was no allegation of surreptitious or clandestine removal of the goods or suppression of facts in the show cause notice issued to the appellants. Shri Kohli cited the following cases in support of his contention that in the circumstances of the case the extended period of 5 years could not be applied and the demand of duty should be considered as time barred : (i) Rabindra Steel Ltd., Nagpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, 1983 ECR 295-D; (ii) Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. Indo Pharmaceuticals Works, 1983 ECR 1221-D; and (iii) Ganga Spinning and Weaving Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 1983 E.L.T. 1674 (Tribunal) = 1983 ECR 1135-D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financial benefit out of these transactions. 6. We do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the case because the present appeal is on the short ground of limitation. The show cause notice did not allege any misstatement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellants. The extended period of 5 years limitation would not, therefore, be applicable to the present case. We hold that the demand of duty made from the appellants is barred by limitation. 7. As for penalty, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that there was any intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of Central Excise duty, the imposition of penalty is, therefore, not justified and is hereby set aside. The appeal is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
