9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending disposal of the appeal today. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant briefly narrated the facts and pleaded that duty has been demanded from the appellant in respect of two Pressure Vessels which were removed from the appellants factory on 15-9-1991 and 9-2-1992. He pleaded that show cause notice in respect of the same is dated 3-8-1992 which is attested by the Supdt. on 10-8-1992 and the same was received by the appellant on 11-8-1992. He pleaded that duty has been demanded beyond the period of six months by invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. He pleaded that the applicant had not manufactured any Pressure Vessel by himself and had purchased the same and that it was built to the prescribed specifications for storage vessels of compressed or liquefied gases as prescribed in the ISI and as required under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 as per the Statics and Mobile Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules, 1981 framed thereunder and all that the appellant had done was to provide insulation externally by putting a layer of Poly Urethene Foam (PUF) and Fibre Reinforced Plastic Sheet (PRF). He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant to remove the Vessels without payment of duty if it was leviable and the appellant was under the bona fide impression that the container for compressed or liquefied gas already fabricated to the specifications as required under the law and had been cleared so after manufacture from the supplier s premises, and any qualitative improvement done on the same by providing insulation externally would not amount to manufacture. The tanks are of huge capacity of 13 to 20 Tonnes and the work relating to insulation in the factory premises was done in the open when the officers were visiting the factory regularly. He pleaded that these vessels were removed from the factory premises under delivery challans and after informing the concerned authorities in regard to the same. He pleaded that the ..... appellants ..... above board. He pleaded that the question of invoking the longer period of limitation therefore would not arise. In this connection he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 361 and also in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 159. He plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that no inference could be drawn that the officers knew about the activity of the appellant in providing insulation to the tanks and there is nothing on record to support of the same. He pleaded that the ratio of the decisions cited would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Counsel in reply submitted that Carbondioxide in liquefied form could be stored in uninsulated tanks as it would be under pressure and that if the tank was not insulated, the liquefied gas may be stored for a comparatively shorter time. 6. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that so far as the facts regarding the manufacture of the Vessels to the specifications as required under the Statics and Mobile Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules, 1981 framed under the powers conferred by Sections 5 7 of the India Explosives Act, 1884 are concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellants referred us to the documents relating to manufacture of the vessels which show that the appellants had ordered for vessels conforming to the ISI specifications and during the course of manufacture, necessary inspection had been done as required under the Rules referred to above an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons as required under the Statics and Mobile Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules, 1981 and the same had acquired the attributes of a Vessel for compressed or liquefied gas. Since the clearance has been made from an exempted Unit it would appear to be of no consequence whether the tariff heading shown in the gate pass is 73.09 or 73.11 and what is to be noted is that the Vessel which was received by the appellants was to the desired specifications for storage of compressed or liquefied gas. As it is the appellants had carried out this operation in the open in the factory and have filed papers in the paper book to show that they had removed the goods under delivery challans and maintained all the records and also had given necessary intimation to the authorities under the rules cited supra. This would show that the appellants had no intention to hide anything from the authorities. In similar situation, the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Singareni Collieries Co Ltd. cited supra has held as under : The Collector neither in his show cause notice nor in his order has laid any basis that the appellants non-compliance with the provisions of Central Excise Law for manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the Rules, made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect (as if for the words Central Excise Officer" the words Collector of Central Excise and for the words six months the words five years were substituted)" In the context of the parameters above, it is obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to set out the circumstances which have led the authorities to infer that there was intention to evade payment of duty. These circumstances will differ from case to case but it is obligatory on the part of the Collector to draw the inference from the facts of the case and he should record his findings that there was an intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty by suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement etc. We find from the order-in-original that the Collector has not drawn any such inference in his order although the allegations in terms of the proviso were made in the show cause notice in this regard. In view of this, we find in the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
