TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, it cannot be stated that the aforesaid steps taken by the appellants were not bona fide. It is more so when the judicial opinion prevailing at that time was in favour of these persons. - When the authorities ask the appellants to take licence in the year 1983 itself and the respondents did not comply, nothing prevented the authorities to take action against the respondents immediately, rather than waiting for number of years before issuing the show cause notice. - show cause notices were time-barred and extended period of limitation was not available to the respondents - Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal Nos. 3043-3056 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 2642 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2015 - A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling Mill 16-12-1986; 26-9-1987 1-8-1983; 31-8-1987 26-7-1988 3. Jalaram Industrial Corporation 16-12-1986; 26-9-1987; 21-1-1988 1-8-1983; 31-8-1987 26-7-1988 4. Priyank Steel 15-12-1986; 28-8-1986 1-11-1985; 30-12-1986 26-7-1988 5. Madhav Steel 15-12-1986 4-12-1987 8-9-1987 23-9-1987 10-7-1985; 15-9-1987 31-10-1998; 15-11-1988 6. Shree Ram Steel Rolling Industries 15-12-1986; 4-6-1987; 25-9-1987 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 2. In view of the position disclosed above, it is not in dispute that all the show cause notices were issued beyond the period of six months. However, the respondents-Department invoked the provision of proviso to Section 11A of the Excise Act on the ground that there was mis-representation on the part of the appellants and the action of the appellants were not bona fide and therefore the extended period of limitation of five years would apply in these cases. 3. In order to appreciate the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent, few facts relevant for determining the issue of limitation are recapitulated below :- 4. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing of rolled products, such as bars and rods of iron and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication, all stocks of inputs in the country, except such stocks as are clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid, shall be deemed to be inputs on which duty has already been paid. 6. The Department took the view that insofar as appellants are concerned, they do not fulfill the two conditions stipulated in the aforesaid proviso and therefore, would be liable to pay the excise duty as they were not entitled to the exemption under the aforesaid Notification No. 208/83 because of the said reason. The appellants on the other hand, maintained that they were fulfilling these conditions and therefore, the exemption should continue. 7. In the year 1983, after the issuance of the said Notification, the respondent-authorities had instructed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laram v. Union of India [1999 (112) E.L.T. 749 (S.C.)], this court expressed doubts about the correctness of the view taken in Usha Martin Industries s case and referred the matter to Larger Bench. Ultimately, the Constitution Bench in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] overruled the Usha Martin Industries s case. This pronouncement came only in the year 2002. 9. It would be clear from the aforesaid judicial journey that the issues involved in the present case remained entangled in judicial battle for quite some time and only in the year 2002, the hazy picture was clarified. In such a scenario, if the appellants took the decision that they were fulfilling the conditions ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the plea that the demands are barred by time, we see log of force in the appellant s plea on this point. We notice that the appellants had obtained licence but the same was delicenced subsequently. There was a dispute with regard to exemption of these materials and the matter had been pending for issue of Notification under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The department had recorded statements from appellants as far back as 14-12-86 and show cause notice was issued only on 31-10-88. There is no finding recorded by the Collector regarding factors leading to wilful suppression and intention to evade duty. The appellants have submitted that they were holding a bona fide belief and with regard to non-dutiability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|