9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules. In the said classification list, the particulars of other goods produced were required to be declared, and they gave a nil declaration implying that they did not manufacture any other goods. Item 68 of the CET was introduced w.e.f. 1-3-1975. During the period from 1-3-1975 to 30-3-1984 the appellants manufactured and cleared Dry Compressed Air valued at Rs. 35,73,604.88, without obtaining a central excise lincence for this commodity and without filing any classification list and price list and without payment of appropriate central excise duty. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong on 26-2-1985 alleging contraventi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for duty under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He has argued that there was no suppression of facts by the appellants. He has stated that the S.R.P. was introduced in 1968. The appellants have been manufacturing Compressed Air since 1963 and during the period from 1963 to 1968 the appellant s factory was under physical control. It cannot, therefore, be stated that the Central Excise officers were ignorant of the fact that the appellants were manufacturing Compressed Air. Further, it is also argued by the learned advocate that in reply to a query made by the Supdt. of Central Excise, Gauhati III range vide his letter dated 18-2-1977, the appellants intimated to the Supdt. of Central Excise vide their letter dated 21- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector s file, which has been obtained by him. In support of this contention he has shown the Collector s adjudication file to us. It is seen that the letter dated 18-2-1977 is not on record in that file. As regards physical control of the factory during the period from 1963 to 1968, Shri Sunder Rajan has stated that no duty has been demanded in the show cause notice for that period. Tariff Item 68 was introduced w.e.f. 1-3-1975 and the duty has been demanded w.e.f. that date. 4. We have gone through the records of the case and the arguments of the learned advocate and the learned DR. As regards the exdsability of Compressed Air, we are unable to accept the appellant s contention that the same is not dutiable under Item 68 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise, Gauhati Range III in this connection. In the impugned order the Collector has not discussed anything about this letter although he has referred to the same at page 2 of the impugned order while enumerating the submissions made by the appellants. In the circumstances, we hold that the appellants were not guilty of suppression of facts and hence the entire demand for duty is time-barred. So far as penalty is concerned, the appellant s contention is that they considered the Compressed Air to be non-excisable. It is their contention that their omission to declare Compressed Air under the Column other goods manufactured in the classification list filed for Oxygen and Acetylene gases is nothing but a technical offence for which there sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
