TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1944, for failure to take out Central Excise Licence, to maintain statutory records, to declare the value of goods and to clear the goods on payment of Central Excise duty during the year 1979-80, when appellants exceeded the production exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs, thereby evading duty of the order of Rs. 39,290.72. In this order, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 37,779.52 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 750/-. It is against this order that the appellants are before this Bench. 2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant, for appellants, and Shri L.C. Chakravarti, JDR, for the respondent. 3. At the out set, Shri Gopal Prasad moved a misc. application seeking permission to file copy of letter dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resumed that in 1979 also the same exemption limit applied; and (e) it was also submitted that Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which had been invoked for raising demand of duty, was not at all applicable because it could be invoked only in the case of clandestine removals, which was not the case here. 5. In the circumstances, it was urged, there was no case of at all for imposition of penalty which should also be set aside, alongwith the demand of duty. 6. Responding, Shri Chakravarti submitted briefly that ignorance of law is no excuse. It was added that even though the show cause notice might not, in so many words, allege suppression of facts, but the ingredients of the offence attracting the extended period of demand of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed that the demand of duty was barred by limitation. It was submitted that there had been in fact no suppression of facts or fraudulent intent and that, being located in a remote place, appellants could not keep abreast with day to day changes of the notification. This argument is not at all tenable. It is hardly necessary to reiterate here that ignorance of law is no excuse. Every manufacturer of excisable goods, no matter where he is undertaking the production, must keep himself fully informed of Excise Tariff, Notifications, Law and Procedure, and, in the event of any lapse or default in this regard, be prepared to pay the price for it. Location in a remote place will not effect his liability to duty and to penal action for non-paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other, dated 28th October, 1982, again addressed to Inspector Central Excise, claimed that appellants did not feel the necessity to file any declaration. The year to which the demand relates is 1979-80. Therefore, neither the letter of dated 28th October, 1982 nor the earlier letter dated 20th June, 1977 are relevant. In any case letters of this kind are no answer to failure to take out Central Excise licence, to maintain records and to clear the goods after proper accountal and payment of duty, in accordance with statutory obligation. 13. Appellants were not able to establish the point that duty could not be demanded an extended period of 5 years on account of failure specifically to allege fraud or suppression of facts in the Show Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
