TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.11.1987 and that no reason was stated as to why Shri Choudhary was not present for the hearing except that he was away from Delhi, the adjournment sought for was declined and the hearing was proceeded with. 2. We have heard Shri Balbir Singh for the Department and have perused the records. Shri Krishnamurthy had stated that except for seeking an adjournment he had no other instructions for making any submissions on the issues in the appeals. 3. The issues arising in these appeals are common and all the appeals are, therefore, being disposed of under this common order. The common appellant in all these appeals is the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. The appeals relate to the liability, on the part of the Board, for payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 579. We may also note that in the statement of facts in appeal No. 1151 of 83 it is stated that the Board has set up various centres for manufacture of PSCC and RCC poles exclusively for the use of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board . Thus the issue that the Board is the manufacturer is not in dispute and, as already stated, the judgment cited supra is to the effect that the appellants are liable to pay duty under Item 68 CET. 6. In all these appeals the demands have been raised pressing into service the larger period of limitation of 5 years, on the basis that the Board having manufactured and removed the poles without obtaining necessary licence and without payment of duty, the relevant prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concerned it appears to us that here also the matter may have to be reconsidered by the Assistant Collector on the question of time bar. In appeal No. E-1150/83-D we find reference to a letter dated 14.7.1979 from the Inspector of Central Excise, Kuppam to the Supervisor of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board at Kuppam wherein the Inspector had called upon the Supervisor to take steps to take out a Central Excise licence for the manufacture of poles. This letter in fact refers to an earlier letter from the Board dated 12.7.1977. It is, therefore, clear that so far as this appeal is concerned, and so far as the Kuppam Unit is concerned, the Department was aware at any rate by 14.7.1979 (and probably by 12.7.1977 or even an earlier d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to willful suppression or mis-statement of facts etc. It would, therefore, appear to us that in each of the said cases the period of 5 years would have been available to the Department in respect of all removals prior to the date when the Department was, or would have been, aware of the manufacturing activity of the Board, but the period of six months only after the said date. It appears to us that the authorities below were in error in applying the 5 year period irrespective of the fact whether duty demanded became payable on a date either before or after the date of knowledge of the Department. We refer in this connection to the judgment of this Tribunal in Vishwa Industrial Works, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
