9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As a result of the scrutiny of seized records, department came to the tentative conclusion that the appellant firm has evaded the payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,08,199.26 by making wilful mis-statement, & suppression of facts. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 17-7-1985 was issued to the appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount of duty may not be demanded and penalty be not imposed. It also appears that cloth measuring 751.60 Meter valued at Rs. 8442.90 was also seized and show cause notice was also issued to M/s. U.S. Textiles calling upon them to show cause as to why the seized cloth may not be confiscated. After the usual adjudicating proceedings, the adjudication officer namely C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut Annexures and also without mentioned to whom it was addressed." To this, the Director of Anti-Evasion by a letter dated 21-11-1985 informed the appellant that since the show cause notice in this case has already been issued to the appellant, they can contest the validity and legality thereof before the adjudicating authority. 5. It appears that the validity of the show cause notice was contested before the adjudicating authority. The said authority in the impugned order has not accepted the plea of the appellant that no service of the show cause notice was made on the appellant herein. In this connection, we reproduces paras 30, 31 and 32 of the impugned order. 30. The facts in this case are very clear. The notice was receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to Director (Anti-Evasion) dated 2-11-1985, they did receive the Notice, though without Annexures. 32. In view of this, it is clear that, both in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act as well as Rule 204 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the noticee did receive a notice to show cause to the action proposed to be taken against him and the various pleas given by the noticee have no basis but are only in the nature of dilatory tactics meant to delay the proceedings. 6. Consequently the adjudicating authority proceeded to deal with the case ex parte inasmuch as the appellants had not taken any other point before the adjudicating authority. 7. Ld. Advocate has pressed again this very submission regarding the invalidity and il ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner has been obtained, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) : Provided that nothing in this notification shall apply to - (a) cotton fabrics containing more than one-sixth by weight of fibre or yarn or both of non-cellulosic origin; and (b) coating, suiting, tussors, corduroy, gaberdine, bed-ford, satin, denim, lappet, butta fabrics, round mesh mosquito netting, lace, knitted fabrics, tapestry, turnishing fabric including jacquard curtain cloth, gadlapet, mattress fabric, terry towel including turkish towel, terry towelling cloth including turkish towelling cloth, blanket, canvas, duck, filter cloth, tracing cloth and bukram cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter may be decided either here by getting the report of the Collector regarding the applicability of this notification to the goods produced by the appellants or it may be remanded to the adjudicating officer to consider the applicability of this notification. 10. Opposing the contention, ld. JDR Shri R.S. Sangia submits that the appellants have been given full opportunity for taking a stand, but unfortunately, he submits, the appellant wanted to get the benefit only on highly technical point of non-service of a show cause notice which is not tenable on facts and circumstances of this case. Having missed the opportunity of arguing on merits before the Collector, JDR submits, appellants should not be allowed to argue on merits at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
