9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish and thinners, labour charges and notional profit, in the price list effective from 24-7-1980 the appellants declared the assessable value of the goods as Rs. 15.50 per kg. This price list was approved by the Department on 18-2-1985. For the period commencing from 1-5-1982 a revised price list declaring the assessable value of the goods as Rs. 19.50 per kg. was filed. The second price list filed by the appellants was also approved by the Department on 14-9-1983. 2. On the basis of the scrutiny of the appellants records the Department arrived at the finding that while working out the assessable value of the goods the appellants had failed to add expenses incurred on transportation to the cost of the electrical steel sheets. After taking into the account the transportation charges, the Department worked out the revised assessable value of the goods for 1981-82 as Rs. 17.53 per kg. and Rs. 27.24 per kg. respectively. Thereafter the appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 7-5-1984 alleging short levy of Rs. 6,11,700.99 during the period 1981-82 and 1982-83. By a corrigendum dated 1-10-1985 to the show cause notice the demand in respect of the duty alleged to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when they were received by the appellants for the manufacture of fans. Shri Jain stated that the amount of short levy worked out in the show cause notice was incorrect since on the basis of the actuals of manufacturing cost and profit certified by the Chartered Accountant the demand for a sum of only Rs. 66,223.45 could have been issued to the appellants. Reiterating his stand that the demand confirmed by the impugned order was time barred, Shri Jain cited the following case law: (i) M/s. TIL Limited v. CCE [1991 (52) E.L.T. 466 (Tribunal)] (ii) Tata Engg. Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1991 (52) E.L.T. 500 (Bom.)] (iii) CCE v. Chemphar Drugs Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276] (iv) Padmini Products v. CCE [1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC)] (v) Punjab Electricity Board v. CCE [1989 (44) E.L.T. 340 (Tribunal)] 4. On behalf of the Revenue the learned SDR Smt. C.G. Lal stated that on a plain reading of the show cause notice it follows that the appellants had knowingly suppressed the information in regard to transportation costs of the raw materials while working out the assessable value of the goods. She contended that specific allegation in the show cause notice in regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Tata Engg. and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 500 the Hon ble Bombay High Court has held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act if the show cause notice does not allege short levy due to fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Para 6 of the judgment being relevant is reproduced below:- Before adverting to the validity of the show cause notice dated February 20, 1985, which is admittedly within the stipulated period prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 11A, it is necessary to dispose of the challenge to the remaining five show cause notices. Section 11A of the Act prescribes for recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. Sub-section (1) prescribes that when any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied, then the officer may require the assessee by show cause notice served within six months from the relevant date to show cause why such short-levied duty should not ,be recovered. The proviso to Sub-section (1) enables the officer to ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payment of duty and six months for other cases. The Collector has held that the appellants were guilty of suppressing the fact of manufacture of blended wool tops, that in the facts and circumstances of the case the extended time limit of 5 years applied and so all the demands were within time. The appellants contend that only the normal time limit of six months applied and most of the demands were tine-barred. The first point made by the appellants in this behalf is that the show cause notices did not allege any suppression on their part nor any reasons for applying the extended time limit had been cited therein, except in the revised show cause notice dated 12-6-1984. We observe that the words fraud , suppression etc. need not be directly mentioned in the show cause notice. It is enough if the statement of allegations contained in the show cause notice brings out the charge of fraud, suppression etc. The show cause notice as issued to the appellants specified the quantity of blended wool tops which had been removed during the relevant financial year and stated that they had been so removed without accounting in excise record, without classifying such blended wool tops, wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion clearly comes out form this record read together." It is seen that in the case relied upon by the Revenue M/s. British India Corporation were charged with the contravention of Rule 9(2) on the ground that they had neither filed the required declaration in respect of goods in question before the excise authority by filing the classification list nor had they recorded the production and removal of the goods in the statutory records. Having regard to these facts the Tribunal held that the charge of suppression could reasosnably be inferred from the statement of allegations contained in the show cause notice. On the other hand we find that in the case before us the classification list effective from 24-7-1980 filed by the appellants was approved by the Department and even the revised classification list effective from 1-5- 1982 was also approved by the proper officer and assessments were regularly made on the basis of these classification lists. It is also evident from the records of the case that the appellants were not charged with the contravention of Rule 9(2) for having cleared the goods without filing the necessary declarations or failure to maintain the statutory records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
