9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Collector of Central Excise, Bhopal, in which it was alleged that during the period from 15th November, 1979 to 27th July, 1981, the appellants have availed of proforma credit amounting to Rs. 77,881.16 of the countervailing duty paid on goods imported by them, which were classifiable under Item No. 68, which was not admissible, and they had thus removed finished excisable goods without payment of equivalent amount of duty in contravention of various Central Excise provisions. Similarly, they also availed of proforma credit in respect of countervailing duty amounting to Rs. 12,816.64 on a consignment of Desmophen, received by the appellants on 20th October, 1981, which again was classifiable under Tariff Item 68, although provisiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were being regularly submitted every month, duly showing the availment of proforma credit. The appellants state that on 29th/30th September, 1981, the Excise authorities informed that Desmophen was classifiable under Tariff Item 15A. However, on 20th August, 1982, they communicated that this item would be classifiable under Tariff Item 68. Thus, the Excise authorities themselves were wholly confused on the issue. 3. It has been pointed out by the appellants that the entire demand of duty is barred by time. The show cause notice, demanding duty, was issued on 12th October, 1982, and the period to which the demand relates is from 15th November, 1979 to 27th July, 1981. Since the demand for duty was issued after the statutory period of six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of some lapses relating to technicalities. In support of this stand, the appellants have cited the following case law :- (1) Chemiequip Ltd. [1984 (18) E.L.T. 135 (Tribunal)] (2) Mafatlal Spinning Weaving Co. (1984 ECR 426 - CEGAT) (3) M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Pune [1984 (16) E.L.T. 294 (Tribunal) = 1984 ECR 1404 - CEGAT, Bombay]. 5. In view of the above facts, the appellants have pleaded that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5.000/- on them is not supportable in law and should be set aside. 6. On behalf of the department, the view taken in the Order-in-Original has been re-iterated. It is stated that the appellants has not requested for availing of proforma credit of goods falling under Tariff Item 68. Since the goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment. They have also, by and large, fully complied with the Excise procedures for the availment of proforma credit. The department has alleged that the appellants did not furnish full particulars of the raw materials imported. This charge, on the face of it, is not substantiated in view of the fact that the particulars of the goods imported were duly declared and the fact of availment of proforma credit was also duly noted in the classification list, approved by the department. 8. We also observe that the Additional Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. In view of the facts, recounted here, it is not understood as to what were the facts of omission or commission on the part of the appellants, which justify the imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
