TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements of the proprietor of the concern and made allied inquiries and, on the basis of the results of the investigations, framed a case of clandestine removal of the goods against the party. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25-4-96 was issued by the Department demanding a duty of Rs. 3,24,171/- on the goods cleared during the aforesaid period, invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. This proposal was contested by the appellants in their reply to the show cause notice, wherein the appellants, inter alia, stated that, by letter dated 10-4-91, they had informed the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise that he intended to start manufacture of Clutch Facing and Washers fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activity which gave rise to the demand of duty was started by the appellants on 27-5-91 and was closed down on 19-2-92 and that activity has not been revived since then due to financial hardships. He concedes that, during the period of dispute, the appellants manufactured excisable goods and cleared the same without payment of duty, but that was under a bona fide belief that they were entitled to exemption, being a small scale manufacturer. Ld. Counsel further submits that, as early as on 10-4-91, the appellants had sent a letter to the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector informing him that they intended to start manufacture of Clutch Facing and Washers for motor vehicles and soliciting proper guidance of the Department. In that letter, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above prayer on the strength of the findings contained in the orders of the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. He has banked on the statement dated 19-2-92 of the appellants, wherein the appellants admitted the duty liability. According to ld. DR, once the assessee admitted the duty liability in a statement which has not been retracted by him, he was estopped from resisting the demand of duty on the ground of limitation. He prays for upholding the impugned order. 4. I have considered the submissions. I find that the appellant has not contested the demand of duty on the excisability point of view. He admits that the goods cleared during the period of dispute were excisable and chargeable to duty of excise and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission that there is no evidence on record, of receipt of the said letter by the Department does not appear to be impressive inasmuch as it was the specific plea of the appellant that he had given all the necessary information to the Department by way of the said letter and none of the lower authorities has recorded any finding to the effect that the letter was not received by the Department. In the absence of rebuttal the question of evidence of receipt not arise. Thus it appears from the record that both the assessee and the Department were aware of the relevant facts prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The demand is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the allegation of suppression stands successfully reb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
