9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilarly in unit No. 2, some irregulaties were found and show cause notice was separately issued. Thereafter, statement of Mohmad Suhail, partner of the appellant firm was recorded who explained that unit No. 2 was engaged in the manufacture of footwears without the aid of power, while unit No. 1 with the aid of the power. He also explained that both the units were exporting the footwears and also supplying the footwears to M/s. Bata India Ltd. On 18-7-96, show cause notice was issued to the appellant firm and its partners namely Mohmad Suhail, Mohmad Zubair and Mohmad Tariq, vide which duty demand was raised against the appellant firm and penalty was proposed to be imposed on its above said partners. Similarly, notice was also issued to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment knew about the manufacturing activity of both the units of the appellants and the appellant firm had not suppressed any facts from the excise department regarding their activity, with intent to evade duty and had not even earned unlawful gain, as no duty was charged from M/s. Bata India Ltd. to whom the footwears were supplied by the appellant firm. He has also contended that even the penalty against M/s. Bata India Ltd. had been set aside by the Tribunal which was imposed under Rule 209A for having received the goods, with the full knowledge about non-payment of duty in respect thereof, by the appellant firm. The charge of connivance of the appellant firm with M/s. Bata India Ltd. in the evasion of duty, therefore falls to the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of duty. 9.The main allegations levelled against the appellant firm in the show cause notice were that the power operated machines were found commonly used in or in relation to the manufacture of footwears by both the units i.e. units 1 & 2, of the appellants, at the time of checking on 3-9-93 by the officers of the central excise, whereas the appellant had represented to the department that unit No. 2 was engaged in the manufacture of footwears without the aid of power, while unit No. 1 was manufacturing footwears with the aid of power. For invoking the extended period of limitation, the show cause notice alleged that the appellant suppressed the vital fact that both the units were one and the same and both together for all practical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply of footwears, the intention on its part in evading duty did not arise. From the material on record, it is, therefore, difficult to hold any fraud or collusion or mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellant for confirming duty demand along with interest. The duty demand is hit by bar of limitation. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner against the appellant firm cannot be sustained and on the question of limitation, is set aside.
11.Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any permissible, under the law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
