TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for the shortage of the quantity of 1287.083 MT of the said goods. The appellants in their letter ref. No. SPM/83/53/154 dated 28-2-1983 addressed to the Inspector, Central Excise, however, requested for writing off the same from the balance of the statutory records viz. RG-1 as it was apprehended that the aforesaid quantity of castings of steel were unfortunately featured in the RG-1. The aforesaid clarification of the appellants being not satisfactory, the Central Excise officers could reasonably believe that the aforesaid quantity of the said goods were removed from the factory without proper determination and payment of Central Excise duty and without proper accountal in the statutory records and without cover under any Central Excise Gate-Pass, and thereby the appellants were alleged to have evaded payment of duty leviable thereon amounting to Rs. 2,83,158.26. 3. The appellants were, therefore, called upon by a notice vide C. No. V-26AA (15)29/ASN/83/492 dated 30-1-1984 issued by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Asansol Division, to Show Cause to the Collector of Central Excise Customs, West Bengal (Erstwhile) Calcutta as to why :- (a) Central Excise duty amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants and Shri M.N. Biswas, the learned S.D.R. appeared for the respondents. 7. Shri Chakraborty, the learned Advocate contended that the demand is barred by limitation. It was his contention that in the Show Cause Notice there is no allegation of clandestine removal with an intent to evade duty and thus the extended period is inapplicable to the facts of this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: (1) G.D. Industrial Engg. v. Collr. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1944 (T). (2) Ganga Spg. Wvg. Mills v. Collr. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1674 (T). (3) Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Collr. - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 243 (T). (4) Integrated Process Aluminium v. Collr. - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 277 (T). (5) Graper Weil (India) Ltd. v. Collr. - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 338 (T). (6) TIL Ltd. v. Collr. C.E. - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 466 (T) 8. It was also contended that penalty is not sustainable in view of the fact that the duty is barred by limitation. In this connection, he relied on the following decision ; New Polymer Industries v. Collr. C.E. -1991 (52) E.L.T. 145. 9. The learned S.D.R. Shri M.N. Biswas contended that the Show Cause Notice is to be read as a whole and if it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or not) in regard to the production, manufacture, storage, delivery or disposal of Castings of Steel; and (vii) without maintaining statutory records of Entry Books, Stock Account etc. in proper manner. 12. The learned SDR Shri M.N. Biswas relied on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 283 (Tribunal) = 1991 (35) E.C.R. 268 Sanghania Alloys and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise wherein at para (9) of page No. 270 the Tribunal held as follows : We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We do not think that the plea of the appellants that they are a new unit and were not well conversant with the procedures of Central Excise is correct. These procedures are nothing but based on common sense and proper accountal. The unit at the time of visit by the Central Excise Officers was already one year old and it could not, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as a new units. The adjudicating authority is right that when a certain amount of production has been shown in the record and that production is not accounted for by way of proper disposal, the obvious inference is that it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the extended period of limitation cannot be involved, and we hold that the demand is hit by limitation. 16. It is no doubt true that if these allegations are not in the Show Cause Notice and if there is no material to support these allegations the demand is hit by limitation. But the question to be determined is whether there are any such allegations in the Show Cause Notice which is supported by evidence in this case. 17. In this connection, we may observe that the above allegations extracted from the Show Cause Notice, as above, show that the allegations of wilful suppression and clandestine removal are inbuilt in the Notice itself. Further the department had issued a letter to the appellants dated 29-7-1982 requiring them to clarify the point that in RG-1 Register for Steel Castings, a quantity of 1287.083 MT is appearing as stock in each month and this huge quantity of materials do not appear physically in the premises of steel foundry. In reply to this letter, the appellants wrote a letter as follows : No. SFM-83/53/154 The Inspector, Central Excise, CLW Sector/CRJ Dated : 28th February, 1983 Sub: Wrong Balance appearing on RG-I Register RG-I Register is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against the said works are established and I, therefore, hold that the said works are liable to pay the Central Excise duty leviable on the quantity of 1137.038 MT of the said goods falling under Item No. 25(16)(ii) (26AA at the material time) of the said Schedule." 20. It is thus evident that the rest of the quantity of 1137.038 could not be correlated. The decision relied on by the learned Advocate Shri K.B. Chakraborty does not help the case of the appellants. In the decision reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1994, it was held that Show Cause Notice must allege fraud or misstatement or suppression of facts and furnish particulars thereof. So also in the decision relied on by Shri K.B. Chakraborty reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1927 the Tribunal held that if there was no allegation or fraud or misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the rules with intent to evade payment of duty the extended period is not applicable. The same is the ratio of the Tribunal decision in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -1984 (15) E.L.T. 243. 21. In our opinion the Show Cause Notice read as a whole sets out sufficient parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
