9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 1-2-1989 levying a duty of Rs. 11,94,098.80 and a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/-under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Act for short. The appellants herein are manufacturers of tread rubber and on the basis of recovery of certain records from the premises of the appellants as also from the Accountant s premises and on the basis of statements recorded from their employees, proceedings were instituted by the Department by issue of show cause notice dated 29-1-1988 for levy of duty on the tread rubber manufactured and removed clandestinely without payment of duty for the period from 1-1-1983 to 7-7-1987 and the proceedings eventually culminated in the present impugned order now appealed against. 3. Shri C. Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds admittedly has been worked out for the entire period 1983 to 1987 and the adjudicating authority is in error to have adopted such a uniform rate right through for the entire quantity of tread rubber alleged to have been clandestinely removed without payment of duty. In this regard the learned Consultant placed reliance on the ratio of the ruling of the Special Bench in the case of Daya Rarm Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 392 (Tribunal). Finally it was urged that the show cause notice dated 29-1-1988 was served on the appellants on 22-2-1988 and since in the impugned order duty is levied from 1-1-1983 to 7-7-1987, which is more than five years the same is contrary to law. 4. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay any duty even assuming for the purpose of argument that the appellants have removed tread rubber clandestinely without payment of duty. We are not expressing any opinion on the question as to what extent the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notifications in respect of the quantity alleged to have been clandestinely removed by them. Such an exercise is not possible at the appellate stage without reference to the original records. In the Special Bench Ruling in the case of Atlas Radio Electronics Pvt. Ltd. referred to above, it has been held that the concessional rate laid down in the Exemption Notification is not dependent on the condition that it would be applicable to only those manufacturers who had disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
