TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be in stock. They were detained on 20-7-1982 allegedly for manufacturing a product falling under Item 52-CET without obtaining a Central Excise licence and clearing them without payment of Central Excise duty thereon. 2. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants for manufacture without Central Excise Licence of 15,97,333 pieces of nuts falling under Item 52-CET with the aid of power during the period 1-4-1981 to 19-7-1982, removal of 14,88,838 pieces of nuts valued at Rs. 15,53,935/- without payment of Central Excise duty and by suppressing the fact of such removal with intent to evade payment of duty. 3. It was also alleged that they failed to file classification list and price list and to account for the goods in the prescribed Central Excise records and cleared the goods without cover of Central Excise gate passes. Further, it was alleged that the total production of appellants of the goods falling under Item 68-CET, with the aid of power, in all, amounted to the value of Rs. 18,12,230.26 during the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1980. The exemption limit under Notification No. 89/79, dated 1-3-1979 being only Rs. 15,00,000/, the rest of the goods were allegedly remove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal in the case of International Minelmech Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut -1983 E.L.T. 2367. 9. Finally, it is urged that the period for which duty has been demanded is from 1.4.81 to 19.7.82 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 17.1.83. Therefore, the demand of duty would be substantially barred by limitation. It is submitted that there has been no suppression of facts and no intention to defraud the Government of its revenue. The production of the impugned goods was duly declared to the department, although they were described as end fittings. The goods were being duly accounted for in the prescribed Central Excise records and were verified by Central Excise Officers. The classification of the goods under Item 68-CET was approved on different dates right from the year 1979 to 1982, namely, 25.5.79, 14.3.81, 19.9.81 and 25.5.82. In the circumstances, it is submitted, duty cannot be demanded beyond the normal period of six months. 10. Responding, Shri J.N. Nigam, SDR, submits that the impugned products were nothing but nuts. Appellants were either buying threaded nuts, or, when purchasing unthreaded nuts, they converted them into threaded nuts by pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuts are also being sold as such to outside parties. In the face of these facts, it is difficult to challenge the department s view that the impugned goods are commercially known and brought and sold as nuts. This is as for as the commercial identity of the goods. 15. Appellants have contended that the function of the nuts is not only to fasten but to enable the flow of oil under high pressure without leakage. There is no gain saying the fact that the flow of oil is possible only after nuts are fastened. To that extent, perhaps it can be stated that the nuts permit the flow of oil. In that context, it is also permissible to argue that the nuts permit the flow of such oil without leak. The question here, however, is not as to what is the process facilitated as a result of the use of the nuts. The question is as to what the nuts themselves are. Are they fasteners or do they have any other independent function? It has not been shown before us that they have any such independent function. To say that they are leakproof is only to reiterate the fact of their essential character and quality as fasteners and not to substantiate any argument as regards their independent function. 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the same way. In fact, the facts in regard to the commercial identity of the goods, as already observed by us, are quite different. 18. In the light of these facts, we have to hold that the impugned goods in question are correctly classifiable under Item 52-CET. 19. The next question to be decided is as regards the applicability of time bar of six months, as claimed by the appellants. Here, once again, the facts are against them. Appellants can hardly contend that they discharged the onus of making correct declaration if they themselves withhold the description which is commonly used in respect of the goods not only by themselves, but also by those from whom they buy or to whom they sell the products. When they were themselves both, buying and selling the goods as nuts, it is difficult to understand why they should describe them as end fittings in the declaration to the department. Even if they did not agree that they were correctly classifiable under Item 52-CET, they should have in a straight forward manner, described the goods by their known commercial name as nuts. In not doing so, and in calling them end fittings, which appellants have not shown is an accepted commercia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
