TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to time and clearing the control units on payment of appropriate duty at approved prices. The dispute relates to a single clearance made by the appellant on 28-2-1985 of one unit of X-ray control equipment, one unit of X-ray tube head and one set of cables, to the same customer but under different invoices. Show cause notice dated 23-6-1986 was issued alleging suppression of material facts by non-disclosure of clearance of tube heads and cable sets along with X-ray control unit and stating that tube head being an integral part of the X-ray control unit, the value thereof should have been included in the assessable value of the excisable goods and proposing demand of differential duty on that basis. Though the appellant resisted the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e subject period or that the department was aware of the true facts in relation to the subject invoice. It is true that the fact that appellant was locally purchasing duty paid cable sets and clearing the same along with the X-ray control unit manufactured by the appellant was within the knowledge of the department in respect of earlier period, but it does not mean that similar modus operandi would necessarily be carried out in respect of the subsequent invoices. We are satisfied that the allegation in the show cause notice attracting proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been made out and the larger period of limitation would be available. 5. On merits, it is submitted that the appellant manufactured only X-ray contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we are not able to agree that the basis of the show cause notice was different from what we explained earlier. However, it is possible for the appellant to contend that while reckoning the value of the whole system and quantifying the duty, the demand must be restricted to the amount claimed in the show cause notice and not to the total amount of duty which may be arrived at. This contention is correct. 7. It is contended that the system which attracted erstwhile T.I. 68 would be exempt under Notification No. 179/77 since the assembling was without the aid of power. This contention was specifically raised before the adjudicating authority who took note of the contention but did not record any finding. It is stated that this question ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
