9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2600 kg. of starch gum found in the factory for action under Central Excise Rules for having manufactured and cleared excisable goods without payment of duty and without following Central Excise formalities. A statement was also given on that day by Shri Sushil Garg, Managing Director saying that they have been manufacturing starch gum since 1982 and had not obtained any Central Excise licence. After further investigation, proceedings were initiated by issue of a Show Cause Notice dated 16-1-1986 alleging that the appellants had been manufacturing modified form of starch which is used as an adhesive for industrial purposes without obtaining Central Excise licence and clearing it without payment of duty, and invoking the longer period Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture of the goods only from 1-8-1984 as evidenced by letter dated 3-10-1986 from DESU confirming that electricity connection was given only on 1-8-1984. There were also receipts for payment of electricity bills for the period as further evidence. The ld. Consultant urged that the Collector has brushed aside this evidence and has relied upon the statement of Sushil Garg which was not directly on this issue and the Collector s finding in this regard is based on presumption and no evidence. Hence, even if duty is demandable, it should be only from 1-8-1984 when their unit became power operated. Further, it was also pleaded that there has been no suppression of facts as even the duty demand in the Show Cause Notice has been quantified from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he starch and dextrine that has gone into its manufacture. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Laminated Packings v. CCE -1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (SC) that the goods belong to same entry is also not relevant because even if the goods belong to the same entry, the goods are different identifiable goods, known as such in the market. Therefore, it has to be held that the goods manufactured by the appellants are covered by description of Item 15C of Cx. Tariff, which reads as follows: Item No. 15C - STARCH Item No. Tariff Description Rate of duty 15C Starch (including Dextrin and other forms of Modified Starch), all sorts, in or in relation to the manufacture of" which any process is or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 985 appears to be giving the position of manufacture as on that date. 6. Therefore, it can be accepted on evidence that the factory became power operated on and from 1-8-1984 and liability to duty of goods manufactured in appellants factory under Item 15C will start from that date and the demand for duty thereon will have to be redetermined accordingly. It is, therefore, ordered accordingly. The plea of the appellants that the demand cannot exceed 6 months prior to the Show Cause Notice has to be rejected as the fact of manufacture of the excisable goods came to light only on the visit of the officers to the factory and the appellants had not also filed any declaration. No doubt, the fact that they had maintained their records properly wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
