9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to Rs.1,29,447.38 should not be demanded from them inasmuch as they were not eligible for duty concession under Central Excise Notification No. 80/80, dated 19.6.80 since their total value of clearances had exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 15 lakhs. By reply dated 20.10.83, the respondents contested the notice. The Assistant Collector found that there were no clearances of the specified goods" (i.e. goods specified in the notification as eligible for duty exemption) in 1981-82. Production was commenced in June, 1982. The aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods during 1982-83 was Rs. 24,32,551.78. Therefore, in accordance with para 5 of the notification, the respondents were not entitled to the exemption and duty was to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents, submitted that it was only on 13.12.82 that the Assistant Collector directed that pending approval of the said classification lists the goods cleared in the past and in future shall be provisionally assessed to duty under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944". On 27.12.82, the Assistant Collector directed execution of a bond in terms of Rule 9B. On 18.1.83, the respondents replied that the question of executing a bond did not arise because they would be paying full duty on clearances exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs. It was also submitted that the Department was fully in the know of things and hence any question of clandestine clearances did not arise warranting invocation of Rule 9(2). 6. We have perused the 3 classification lis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, in pursuance of the Assistant Collector s directions, to execute a B.13 bond for Rs. l lakh and 25 thousands. He also indicated in the letter that the price-lists and classification lists were approved only provisionally. In reply to this letter, the respondents wrote on 18.1.83 to the Superintendent that the question of execution of a bond did not arise and that in view of the fact that their clearances had exceeded Rs.15 lakhs, it would not be justifiable to call upon them to execute a bond for the quantities already cleared from the factory. It was further indicated that they would be paying full statutory rate of duty on their exceeding 15 lakhs and the question of executing a bond for future clearances also did not arise. 8. Fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor s order makes curious reading. The party s contention that proviso to Section (1) of Section 11-A and Rule 9(2) cannot be invoked in this case is also not acceptable. In this case there has been evasion of duty of over one lakh of rupees and it can legally be presumed that the party has contravened the rules with intent to evade payment of duty. Proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 11-A will therefore apply and as such the claim is not time barred . There is no such legal presumption as assumed by the Assistant Collector. In the first place, it has to be shown by the department that there has been evasion of duty. In the second place, the department has to show that there has been contravention of the law with intent to evade pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
