9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory premises of the appellant, M/s. Alwyn Industrial Corpn., the Central Excise officers found that 2148 coils and 15,260 Mtrs. of electric wires and cables had been manufactured without obtaining any Central Excise licence therefor and had been removed without payment of Central Excise duty. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and why the duty payable on the above said goods are not to be demanded under Rule 9(2). In the reply the appellant denied that either coils or cableds had been manufactured by them. References have been made in the show cause notice to loans obtained by the appellant from the State Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat even through the correspondence from the bank no conclusion can be drawn as to the alleged manufacturing activity of the appellant. He finally contended that in any event the show cause issued on 25-2-1977 was barred by time under Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and for that reason also the orders of the lower authorities are incorrect. Shri Deb for the Department contended that the very fact that the appellant had applied for a loan from the State Bank of India for manufacturing wires and cables and had obtained a loan and hypothecated its articles of manufacture also to the Bank would prove that the appellant had been engaged in manufacture of these articles and the denial by the appellant cannot be accepted. He furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 5-4-1976 the State Bank of India had informed the Excise authorities that the appellant had obtained a cash credit limit of Rs. 50,000/- and that the loan amount was sanctioned for the manufacture of electric wires and cables and as per stock statements received the appellants, manufacturing of cables was done by them. Along with the letter dated 21-12-1976 copies of 12 stock statements had been sent by the bank to the authorities. Therefore, even these letters do not refer to any actual inspection by the bank or any personal knowledge on the part of the bank of the manufacturing activities carried on by the appellant. During the course of the hearing in this appeal Shri Bhatia at that stage appearing for the Department, had produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing activity was carried on by the appellant cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the two letters from the State Bank of India, wherein also no specific statement is made about the actual manufacturing operations. 7. In this view, we are of the opinion that the order of the lower authorities about acceptable proof of the manufacturing activities of the appellant cannot be supported. For this reason itself, the order of the Board appealed against is liable to be set aside. The further contention of Shri Agarwal is that in any event the proceedings were barred by time under the provisions of Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. For this proposition he realised upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajastha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
