TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning and ventilation system; that they entered into two contracts with M/s. India Cement Ltd. for supply of air conditioning and ventilation system and for rendering services in connection with installation of the air conditioning and ventilation system on 20-6-1989; that the Additional Collector confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on them in respect of ducts for air conditioning system and flanges manufactured by them at the premises of M/s. India Cement Ltd.; that on appeal the Appellate Tribunal vide final order No. E/270/99-B1, dated 5-3-1999 rejected the appeal filed by them; that the appellants thereafter filed an application for rectification of mistake on the ground that extended period of limitation was not invokable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Department that any fact was suppressed from them; that the Department was fully aware of the activities of the appellants, and, therefore, the demand of duty being beyond the period of 6 months is barred by limitation. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R., submitted that the fact of manufacture of excisable goods was not declared by the appellants to the department nor they had taken out a licence for manufacture of excisable goods. Therefore, it is clear that they had suppressed the material fact from the department. He further submitted that the value of the goods manufactured by them was not furnished by the appellants which resulted in issuing the show cause notice late; that as this fact was only in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abrication of ducts was suppressed from the department as it was already aware of the activity undertaken by the appellants. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products v. CCE, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) that mere failure or negligence on the part of the appellants either not to take licence or not to pay duty in case there was scope for doubt, does not attract the extended period of limitation. The Supreme Court recently in the case of CCE v. Malleable Steel Iron vs. CCE, 1998 (100) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) has held that the department cannot take the plea of any suppression inasmuch as the respondents had written to the Suptd. requesting for clarification of the classification of the goods and the letters were exchange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
