9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Textile Commissioner, Bombay it had been discovered that the textile permits on the basis of which the licences had been initially issued to the owners of the powerlooms at Ichalkaranji (from whom the appellant and three others had acquired the powerlooms) was fake and forged. 2. Thereupon show cause notice had been issued to the said four persons and on receipt of their reply adjudication proceedings had followed. By his order dated 7-12-1980 the . Collector of Central Excise, Kolhapur rejected the contentions of the appellant and the other three. He confirmed the duty demanded under the show cause notices. The appeals preferred by the said four persons against the said order was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated to the period for which the duty demand could have been raised and confirmed. He submitted that the demand could have been made for the normal period of six months only and not for the extended period. He pointed out that the appellant had acquired the 4 powerlooms under the bonafide belief that the person from whom he acquired the same, had a lawful Textile permit issued in his favour in that connection by the Textile Commissioner and therefore, on purchase of the powerlooms the appellant would be entitled to work on the same after due transfer of the textile permit to his own name and that the forged nature of the permit came to the knowledge of the appellant only on the survey conducted by the officers of the Textile Commissioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise authorities at Ichalkaranji were not merely aware of the functioning of these powerlooms but did not take objection to the textile permit with reference to which the said powerlooms were functioning. They evidently did not suspect the genuineness of the said textile permit. 8. It is in view of the these circumstances that the appellant was evidently duped into believing that the textile permit under which the powerlooms worked in Ichalkaranji was a properly issued permit and, under such an honest belief, he had purchased the powerlooms and had them installed in his premises and was working the same without any intent to evade payment of duty. No doubt, the lower authorities have referred to certain other circumstances from whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the proviso to Section 11 A should be made applicable in making the demand for the payment of past duty. That would mean that the demand would be confirmed only to the extent of six months preceding the date of show cause notice. 10. In this case the show cause notice had been initially issued in 1979 demanding duty for the period of six months preceding thereto. But subsequently the said show cause notice had been replaced by a fresh show cause notice dated 9-5-1980 demanding duty for the entire period 4-11-1975 to 30-7-1979. To use the words of the Appellate Collector "however, subsequently these show cause notices were replaced by fresh 4 show cause notices issued in 1980." It is, therefore, clear that the show cause notice is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
