TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hunar. One of the raw materials used in the manufacture of cement is clinker. The appellants factory at Churk and Dalla manufacture clinker. A major part of the clinker manufactured in the said factories are transferred to the Chunar factory for the manufacture of cement. The Chunar factory does not manufacture clinker but only manufactures cement. The movement of clinker is mostly in the wagons provided by Indian Railways and the wagons provided by the Railways were neither closed wagons nor were they foolproof wagons which made them vulnerable to leakage/pilferage etc. 3. The appellants were issued seven show cause notices between 5-4-1984 and 26-4-1985 demanding various amounts of duty relating to different periods on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of show cause notice dated 5-4-1984 covering the period March, 1982 to July,1982 the demand related to the quantity of clinker removed from Churk factory without following the Chapter X procedure. The learned submitted that on similar proceeding initiated against the appellants for the subsequent period (1990 to 1993), the Hon ble Allahabad High Court had held that the conclusion of the authority that only 2% shortage towards transit loss will be permissible was arbitrary and the Hon ble Allahabad High Court had quashed the proceeding initiated against the appellants [U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited v Union of India - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 6]. The learned Advocate submitted that all the six out of the seven show cause notices in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or huge quantity of losses as due to natural causes were also not admissible. Further, for making a demand for the recovery of duty under Rule 196, there was no time limit and the time limit prescribed under Section 11A had no applicability to cases where the Chapter X procedure had not been followed. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I find from the order of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited v. Union of India (supra) that the two contentions raised by the learned Advocate in this appeal, namely, issue of time bar and percentage of permissible shortage of 2% allowed by the adjudicating authority below has been set aside by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was due to natural causes and accidents during handling of the material and its transport from one place to another and the shortage duly accounted for. 8. The Hon ble High Court had also held that limitation period prescribed under Section 11A was applicable to Rule 196 also and since the show cause notice related to a period beyond six months without any allegation as to wilful mis-statements suppression of facts etc. time bar will apply. 9. The learned JDR while reiterating the findings of the adjudicating authority, left it to the Bench to decide the issue in the light of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court judgment referred to above. 10. I find that the two issues raised by the appellants Counsel, namely time bar and the percenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
