TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 28,62,422.75 by suppressing the fact of not declaring the production and clearance intentionally. It was, therefore, proposed as to why the said duty be not recovered under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty be not imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules upon the appellant. 1.2.1 Aforesaid charges were based on the following statement of allegations annexed to the show cause notice. 1.2.2 The appellant has been manufacturing coal tubs (T.S.H. 8606.00), truck body (8704.00), Grizley (7308.00), Wireless tower/lighting tower (7308.90), Almirah (9403.00), Trusses and Columns (7308.90) and Water tank (8312.90). The appellant has been supplying the said goods on the requisition of various areas/collieries of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the aforesaid directions, the appellant was directed to pay the same to the department immediately. 1.3.2 A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) was also imposed. Hence this Appeal before the Tribunal. 2.1.1 At the outset, ld. Advocate, Shri A.K.S* Mitra for the appellant has submitted that it has been held by this Bench in another matter of the appellant herein vide its Order Nos. A/1262-1263/Cal/97, dated 16-9-1997 that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 182/87-C.E., dated 10-7-1987 w.e.f. 10-7-1987. In view of the said judgment of the Tribunal, submits the ld. Advocate, duty liability for the period July, 1986 to 9-7-1987 only survives now. 2.1.2 With reference to the aforesaid period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stipulated under Section 11A cannot be invoked by the authorities in the show cause notice. 2.2.1 On the merits of the demand that all the goods on which demand has been raised are utilised for repairs and maintenance of various machines used in the mines, individually, for each of the goods involved herein, he draws attention to the submissions/grounds set out in the Appeal memo of the appellant which are as follows :- (i) Coal Tubs are components of coal handling equipment and would be covered by Notification 281/86-C.E. and 182/87-C.E., dated 10-7-1987. (ii) Grizley : It is essentially a seive or set of seives for different gradations of coal mined in collieries. Due to wear and tear, inner portion gives way while the frame remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as on Apex Court s judgment in the case of Sarabhai Enterprises reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 214 because such almirahs are made out of industrial waste to store records, working tools etc. and are not marketable in the market as almirahs. 2.2.2 Ld. Advocate, therefore, prays for allowing the Appeal. 3.1.1 Ld. JDR, Shri R.K. Roy for the Revenue, on the other hand, urges that there is a clear suppression of facts as found by the adjudicating authority in the following words :- When officer visited their workshop immediately after the issue of Notification 281/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986, the officer was given a reply in writing that the workshop was undertaking repairing of heavy earth movers machines of different collieries of the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above Notification shows that the same exempts the excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within the factory and used within the same factory or any other factory of the same manufacturer for repairs or maintenance of machinery installed therein. Since in the instant case, the workshop is not situated within the factory and the goods produced therein are being used for the repairs of heavy earth-moving machinery or other biggest machineries used in different mines of Central Coalfields Ltd., the exemption was not got extended to such workshop. Accordingly, we hold that the provisions of Notification No. 281/86 were not available to the appellants. 4.1.1 We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly pointed out by the ld. JDR, we have already held in appellant s own case vide our Order, dated 16-9-1997 (supra) that benefit of this Notification will not be available to the appellant. We have also held in that order that demand of duty for the period prior to 10-7-1987 is sustainable against the appellant. Same reasons hold goods because visit by a Central Excise Officer, per se, after 24-4-1986 does not prove that everything material came to his knowledge or was brought to his knowledge. 5.1 In short, duty for the period July, 1986 to 9-7-1987 on all goods involved, except trusses, columns and wireless and lighting towers, is liable to be recovered from the appellant. We order accordingly. 5.2 Penalty amount, being small, is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
