TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factured and removed 3.685 M.T. and 9.993 M.T. of cotton yarn in 1977 and 1978 respectively without accountal in the R.G. 1 register without determination and payment of excise duty and without observing any Central Excise formality and accordingly the show cause notice was issued for the recovery of the duty amounting to Rs. 5,908.90 (Rs. 1591.92 for the year 1977 and Rs. 4,316.98 for the year 1978) and to impose penalty under Rule 173-Q. The show cause notice was duly answered denying the duty liability. The Collector who adjudicated the proceedings after considering the reply to the show cause notice and submissions held that company could not establish the fact that difference 3.685 M.T. and 9.993 M.T. of cotton yarn was less than 3 met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppressed the facts in view of the fact the off waste cotton was clearly shown in the audited balance-sheet. He contended that the demand was barred by time since the show cause notice was issued on 29-8-1980 for the period 1977 and 1978. The facts were neither suppressed nor they were specifically alleged in the show cause notice and furthermore there was no intention to ....... the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Raj Nigam v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 618 and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chemphar Drugs Liniments v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 and Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise........... He said that there is huge differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respective balance-sheets. The case of the Department is that cotton waste was liable to be accounted in R.G. 1 since cotton waste was also subjected to duty. It is not free from doubt whether cotton waste as such manufactured by the appellants was subjected to duty since Notification No. 172/72 exempts cotton waste of short length. Undoubtedly it was for the party to prove that cotton waste was of less than 3 meters of length to claim exemption in terms of Notification. But the main point to be considered in this case not the duty liability but time barring issue. There is some force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that they ...... the type of cotton waste manufactured by them and they have not suppressed the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
