9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, Advocate, has appeared. Ld. Senior Advocate pleaded that Beams and Girders are constructed partly and further casting is done at site. He pleaded that the goods are not marketable and no duty is leviable. In support he cited the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Indian Cable Company Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 22 (SC) = JT 1994 (6) SC 243 and laid special emphasis on para 11 of the said judgment, wherein the Supreme Court has referred to the earlier decision in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth General Mills, 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) (SC) = AIR 1963 SC 791 and also referred to the other decisions on the subject, namely, South Bihar Sugar Mills v. Union of India, 1978 (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deposit Rs. 55,49,852 towards duty and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs it will amount to undue hardship. He also referred to the Balance Sheet for the year ending 31st March, 1993 and stated that there are losses to the tune of 319 Lakhs for the year 1992-93. 3. Shri R.K. Kapoor Ld. SDR has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. He relied on the order passed by the Collector. He argued that prima facie the Revenue has a good case on merit and also argued that the goods are marketable and extended period of limitation is invokable. In support of his argument, he cited the case Safari Industries (I) Private Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 308 (Tri.) = 1991 (37) E.C.R. 303, Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise - JT 1994 (1) SC 545. Shri. V. Sridharan, Advocate had argued on the point of limitation and had cited a decision reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T 257 (S.C). Para 6 of the said judgment is reproduced below : - 6. Let us clear the ground. In the Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (SC), this Court has held that in order to make a demand for excise duty sustainable beyond a period of six months and upto a period of five years, under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act (earlier, Rule 10 of the Rules made under the said Act), It had to be established that excise duty had not been short-levied or paid by reason of fraud or collusion or wilful mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order that during the pendency of the appeal the Revenue authorities shall not pursue any recovery proceedings. Now, coming to the prayer for stay in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. we dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount and penalty on the condition of the applicants depositing Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 5 lakhs within four months from today. The appellants have to report compliance of the order within five months from today. In case the appellants fail to comply with the terms of the stay order, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. It is further ordered that during the pendency of the appeal the revenue authorities shall not pursue any recovery proceedings of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
