TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the second on 15th January, 1992. Show Cause Notice dated 2nd July, 1993 was issued to them claiming duty on manufacture of generating sets. The Collector confirmed the demand for duty holding that there was deliberate suppression of the fact of manufacture of generating sets. The Appeal preferred by the Appellants has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned Judgment. 3.It is submitted that the extended period of limitation was not available as there was no wilful suppression and in any case generators being huge items, the Department was always aware of their installation. It was submitted that the Appellants and all the other people in the locality were aware of a Trade Notice issued by the Delhi Collectorate dated 24th Dece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... burden was on the department but once the department discharged that burden it shifted on the assessee. 4.Both the Collector as well as the Tribunal have held that this is not the case where by virtue of the Trade Notice issued by the Delhi Collectorate there could be a doubt. It has been found as a fact that there was wilful suppression of the fact of manufacture of the generating sets. It was only when the inspector inspected the premises on 17th March, 1992 that it was found that the generator sets had been manufactured. We are in agreement with these findings. The Trade Notice issued by the Delhi Collectorate is of 24th December, 1986. Thereafter the Central Collector had issued a Trade Notice dated 11th October, 1990. That Trade Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of limitation was available. 5.It is next submitted that even presuming there was a manufacture, the manufacture was by the supplier and it is the supplier who was liable to pay duty, if any, was payable. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 62 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held, on facts of that case, that it was the contractor who had actually manufactured and that duty could not be demanded from the customer. It was pointed out that this Judgment was affirmed by this Court inasmuch as the Civil Appeal filed against that Judgment has been dismissed. Whether the supplier or the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein same goods of another manufacturer were classified differently by the Department. This Court held that there cannot be any such discrimination and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. Reliance was also placed upon the authority of this Court in the case of Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 42 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that different States Authorities could not take different stand in different States. It was held that a Trade Notice issued by one Custom House must bind all Customs authorities. 8.To these principles there can be no dispute. However, except for making a general statement that nobody else has paid duty, no particulars or details are given. On the contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
