9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1985 was rescinded by Notification No. 174/85 dated 24-7-1985, confiscating the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7-1-1986 the Preventive Officers of Central Excise Division Agra visited the factory of the appellants who are holders of L 4 Licence for the manufacture of PVC soles classifiable under T.I. 36(2) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. On physical verification of the stock lying in the factory it was noticed that 400 pairs of PVC soles valued at Rs. 5,600/- were not accounted for in the statutory RG 1 records. The proprietor of the firm tendered a statement on the same date that 400 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not the subject matter of the original proceedings. The appellants also submitted that the goods manufactured and cleared during the period in dispute were not removed clandestinely but were cleared in good faith for want of knowledge of Notification 174/85 which rescinded the earlier notification granting exemption from payment of duty on such goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand under Section 11A read with Rule 9(2), confiscated the seized goods under Rule 173Q with an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 2,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard Ms. Savita Sharma, learned Counsel and Shri V.C. Bhartiya, learned DR and carefully considered their submissions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ately after exemption was withdrawn on 24-7-1985, we hold that the demand is not barred by limitation. The argument of the learned Counsel that the second show cause notice has gone beyond the scope of the earlier show cause notice also does not hold good in view of the fact that both show cause notices allege suppression on the part of the appellants. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is not correct to state that the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi set aside the earlier order of the Deputy Collector on the ground of time bar - we have gone through the remand order of the Collector (Appeals) and find that the order of the Deputy Collector was set aside for wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
