9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Central Excise, XVII Division, Calcutta by his order dated 25-1-1982/19-3-1982 and upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta by his order dated 18-12-1982. 2. The appellants hold a L-4 Licence for manufacture of Motor Vehicles falling under T.I. No. 34 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants filed their Classification List bearing No. 1/Motor Vehicle/80 dated 7-10-1980 claiming classification under T.I. 34-I (1) and exemption from payment of whole of Central Excise Duty leviable thereon in terms of Notification No. 52/77-C.E., dated 6-4-1977. This Classification List was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta XI Division on 23-10-1980. Later the Superintendent of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pedalled, if necessity arises for so doing. He further argued that mopeds are powered cycles and are not defined in the Excise Act. The word 'Moped' does not appear in the Tariff. The appellants product in case of necessity arising, is pedalled'. It, therefore falls within the meaning of term 'power cycles' as set-out in the explanation to the notification. He contended that the appellants were entitled to benefit of exemption under the notification read along with the explanation. He also urged that the show cause notice referred to literature of the product circulated by the appellants as its basis. But in spite of the appellants' request no such literature was shown to the appellants. There was thus non-compliance with the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en guilty of suppression of facts and therefore the orders of demand of duty and levying penalty were justified and legal. It was not barred by limitation. 4. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties. For the purpose of the appeal, it does not appear necessary to give a finding about the proper classification of the appellants product as the appeal could be decided on other grounds. The Show Cause Notice referred to literature circulated by the appellants. We find that the appellants had requested the Superintendent of Central Excise for inspection of documents relied on and the Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated 16-11-1981 granted permission to the appellants for inspection of record. The recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only being starter of the and the shape of the vehicle not being that of an ordinary bicycle, Moped in the case of other manufacturers being so classified as the factors for concluding classification of the appellants product to be wrong. The perusal of the Show Cause Notice shows that none of the ingredients which formed the basis of the order was mentioned in the show cause notice. All that the show cause notice said was that from the literature of the products circulated by the licensee it appeared that they are actually manufacturing Mopeds. We feel that the factors taken into consideration in coming to a finding in the order not having been set out in the show cause notice, the order cannot be sustained as it took into consideration th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
