TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28-4-1997, wherein a demand of duty had been raised on M/s. Ranka Wires Pvt. Ltd. (RWPL, for short) for the period 1992-93 to 95-96 by clubbing their clearances of excisable goods with those of M/s. Insulated Wires Mfg. Co. (IWMC, for short) and M/s. Ranka Alcop (RA, for short) for the purpose of computing aggregate value of clearances of M/s. RWPL under Notification Nos. 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E., and a penalty was proposed on M/s. RWPL under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The SCN had invoked the larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, alleging that the three units had wilfully suppressed before the department material facts relevant to clubbing of their clearances. 2. The impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat, 2001 (127) E.L.T. 171 (Tri.-Mum.) (3) Burroughs Welcome (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III, 2000 (124) E.L.T. 522 (T.) (4) Manali Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, 2004 (167) E.L.T. 434 (T) = 2004 (61) RLT 73 (CESTAT- Che.) 5. Referring to the Commissioner's finding that, as the non-payment of job charges by one unit to another had not been disclosed to the department, there was suppression on the part of RWPL and, consequently, the larger period of limitation was invocable against them, learned advocate submitted that it was not a legal requirement for M/s. RWPL to disclose to the department any non-payment of job charges. It was argued that non-disclosure of a fact which was not required by law to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as suppression of material features and factors had been clearly established. Reliance was also placed on the Tribunal's decision in Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II, 2002 (142) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Del.), wherein a finding of suppression of facts was upheld by the Tribunal after observing that use of brand name of another person had not been disclosed by the assessee in their classification list or RT-12 Returns or during stock verification by Central Excise officers and, accordingly, the extended period of limitation was held to be applicable. 7. After careful consideration of all the submissions, we find that the appellants have conceded the Commissioner's findings on the merits of the case. The only subsisting challenge to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the cases of JKS Fibre Glass Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Mafatlal Fine Spg. Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) and Burroughs Welcome (I) Ltd. (supra), the larger period of limitation was held not to be invocable as the classification lists filed by the assessees had been approved by the department without objection. In the case of Manali Petrochemicals (supra), the assessee had filed declaration and price lists periodically which had been approved by the department and, in these circumstances, it was held by the Tribunal that the appellants had not suppressed any information from the department and, therefore, the larger period of limitation was not invocable against them. We find that one of the elements of suppression found by the Commissioner pertains to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
