TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhansali, SDR for the Collector. We, however, do not propose to go into the merits of the issue as in our opinion the appeal could be disposed of on the issue of limitation. 3. The show cause notice dated 25-1-1991 demanding duty was issued for clearances during the period from 8-1-1988 to 29-2-1988. The extended period contained in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was invoked on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the fact of manufacture and clearance without payment of duty with the deliberate attempt to evade duty. The notice alleges that after it was detected, the company came forward to pay duty. It is true, as argued by Shri Mehta that the appellant had filed a classification list for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules. One of the annexures to this letter, a copy of which was marked `forwarded to the Collector of Central Excise, Surat indicated that lean gas was being manufactured. 4. It appears that the chain of events culminating in the issue of show cause notice commenced with the letter dated 5-3-1988 of the Superintendent to the appellant. In this letter, the Superintendent had said that the floor chart of gases in the ground plan of the appellant indicated that it supplied lean gas through pipeline to M/s. Kribhco for use in manufacture of fertilizer. The letter goes on to point out that the classification list does not indicate the supply of lean gas to Kribhco and ask for details of such supply. In his reply dated 29-3-1988, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ines to Kribhco. The facts also show that on an enquiry being made by the Superintendent the appellant promptly supplied the information as for regarding detail of supply of the gas. These facts do not lead to the conclusion that the appellant wilfully suppressed information relating to supply of lean gas to Kribhco with an intent to evade payment of duty. The conduct of the appellant was not such as would be consistent with trying deliberately to evade payment of duty. If the officers had acted with promptitude in reply to the appellant s letter i.e. in March/April 1988, the show cause notice could comfortably have been issued well within time. Whatever the reason for not issuing it in time, the appellant s inaction or refusal to furnish t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
