9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner submitted that duty has been levied for the period 1986-87 to 1989-90 by issue of a show cause notice dated 27-2-1991 invoking the longer period of limitation in terms of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. It was urged that the petitioner is only manufacturing parts of bottle filling machine and parts of conveyors which are classified by the Department under heading 8422.90 and heading 8431.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The learned counsel contended that the items in question are not identical parts of any machine and are only semi-finished goods, which are not excisable under the Act. The items manufactured on job work basis on behalf of M/s, Rita Bottling Machines (P) Ltd. and Liberty Equipments (P) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Machines (P) Ltd. However, it was urged, even then the petitioner would not be liable to any duty, since the value of the goods manufactured and cleared for M/s. Rita Bottling Machines (P) Ltd. and M/s, Lefoot Machines (P) Ltd. for 1986-87 would-be only Rs. 9,86,530.05 well within the exemption limit of small scale unit. For the year 1987-88 the total value of the clearances to the said units would come to Rs. 13,47,955.85 and though the petitioner should have taken out a licence and filed a declaration that would not by itself make them liable to pay duty. Likewise, for the year 1988-89 the total value of the clearances to the said units would only come to Rs. 4,74,000/- and for 1989-90 it would come to Rs. 7,38,939/-. Finally, it was urge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority also has referred to the rulings of the Supreme Court and other High Courts and also to the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Act and also the scope of Rule 2A of the Interpretative Rules and also further detailed as to how the petitioner had admittedly not filed a declaration nor taken out a licence which admittedly the petitioner ought to have taken under law and exhaustively dealt with the various circumstances for fastening the duty liability with penal consequences in the impugned order on the petitioner. On going through the entire order in detail, we do not find prima facie any infirmity in the reasoning of the adjudicating authority and likewise nor any force prima facie in the plea of the learned counsel in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case the applicant has been manufacturing goods from the year 1985-86 and has not intimated to the authorities the fact of the manufacturing activity carried out by him. The learned Consultant for the applicant has pleaded that the applicant was manufacturing both finished goods as well as goods on job work basis, which were not in the nature of finished goods for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty and has pleaded that so far as the value of finished goods manufactured by them is concerned the same is within the exemption limit under Notification 175/86 and during the years 1985-86 to 1989-90 only in one year they exceeded the limit for the purpose of taking out of the licnece. He, however, conceded that the required declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant s consultant as to whether he has got the details of the specifications to which the goods were ordered to be manufactured, the descriptions given in the order and also the nomenclature which was given to these goods when the same were returned. He could not furnish the necessary details in this regard. In regard to financial hardship, the learned counsel for the applicant pleaded that the applicant s unit has been closed since 1990. it was pointed out to the learned Advocate that there is not even a whisper in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application that the applicant s financial position was in any way not sound and that the only plea made in the application is on the merits of the case. He, however, brought to our no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not been placed before us. In a case like this it is desirable that the facts in regard to what has been ordered for and what has been actually manufactured with reference to the specifications supplied are brought on record and, we observe, this has not been done by the applicants. In view of this, on merits, I agree the prima facie there is no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authority. In regard to financial hardship, as mentioned by me, there is no plea in the affidavit that the applicant has financial incapacity. However, taking note of the fact that the applicant is only a job worker and the operations are reflected in the Balance Sheet showing the turnover of less than Rs. 20 lakhs, I agree with my learned Brother tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
