9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and that they had not observed the relevant Central Excise formalities in connection therewith such as filing classification list, price list etc. and action was therefore proposed to be taken to recover from them, under rule 9(2) read with rule 10(1) of Central Excise Rules, duty on the said goods as indicated in the annexure to the notice and also to levy a penalty. The appellants replied. After adjudication the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay under his order dated 29-6-1982 confirmed the demand on goods valued Rs. 2,31,938.13P cleared during the abovesaid period and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred. 2. The appellants had indicated under lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case for the department is that since the necessary figures were not furnished to the department this is a case of wilful suppression of facts and the department is therefore entitled to a period of 5 years in enforcing the demand and hence the entire period is within time. It appears to us that neither contention is fully correct. The show cause notice had been issued on 15-3-1980 and would be governed by the provisions of rule 10 as it stood that day, the provisions of Section 11A not having coming into force by then. Under the provisions of rule 10 the Deptt. had a period of 6 months from the relevant date for issuing any demand for duty not levied, the period extending to 5 years where the non-levy was by reason of fraud, collusion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not correct in contending that in respect of such duty also the period of 5 years was available to them. 6. The result is that with reference to the period 1-4-1978 to 10-4-1979 (the period covered by the demand under notice dated 15-3-1980) the period will have to be split into 1-4-1978 to 3-4-1979 (with reference to which period the demand could be raised within 5 years from the relevant dates) and the remaining period of 4-4-1979 to 10-4-1979 (when the demands were to be raised within 6 months from the relevant dates). Since the notice had been issued on 15-3-1980 it follows that the demand for the period 4-4-1979 to 10-4-1979 was wholly barred by time but not the demand for the earlier period. 7. The appellants have contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
