9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipes were found in excess of re corded balance in RG-1 Register and the same were seized. Certain records were resumed for scrutiny and it was found that the respondents were filing classification lists from time to time mentioning therein the description of goods as MSC/M.S. Pipes with market/buyer brand names and MSC/M.S. Pipes and tubes with own brand/unbranded. The pipes and tubes with market/buyer's brand names were cleared on payment of normal rate of 15% ad valorem and the pipes bearing their own brand/unbranded were cleared on payment of concessional rate of duty under notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-2-1993 as amended. It appeared from the record that the assessees had originally bifurcated M.S. Pipes manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir pipes as 'market/buyer brand pipes', without mentioning the name of specific brand in the records. The value of clearance of both categories of pipes manufactured and cleared by the assessee during the period 1993-94 exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 3 crores in the financial year 1994-95, hence the assessees were not eligible to avail benefit of exemption in terms of SSI notification for the financial year 1995-96. It was found that Central Excise Duty to the extent of Rs. 6,25,000/- has been short paid during the financial year 1995-96. Show cause notice proposing recovery of duty on the above basis and proposing penal action was issued to the assessees; the demand was confirmed on adjudication by the Joint Commissioner of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tendent, vide his letter dated 14-11-94 raised objections while assessing the RT12 returns, wherein very first objection was relating to Specification/Size/Brand name etc. while issuing the invoices. This was replied by the appellant vide their letter dated 30-11-94. Thus from above facts it is very clear that the fact was very well in the knowledge of the department that the appellant were manufacturing goods with others brand name/trade name. In these circumstances, invocation of extended period under Section 1 1A is not sustainable. The main allegation of the department is that the appellant never manufactured market brand goods they had willfully shown some of their pipes as only "market brand pipes" on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of notice. We find that the respondents had made a positive averment in the classification declaration that they were manufacturing MS pipes both of their own brand as well as bearing brand name of other persons which was deliberately false, for the reason that they were manufacturing only their own brand and the misdeclaration was resorted to for the purpose of fraudulent and wrongfully availing benefit of exemption under SSI notification No. l/93-C.E. They also sought to mislead the department by reply dated 30-11-94 that it was the market practice not to mention the brand name. Since there has been a positive averment in the classification declaration which was a false one, the extended period of limitation is available to the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
