9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of cement. A ropeway was installed in 1984 to bring the limestones mechanically to the factory. The appellants had entered into a contract with M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd., Calcutta for construction including design, manufacture, supply, transportation, civil engineering, erection, testing and commissioning of the said ropeway. M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd. had brought various component parts into the factory of the appellants and assembled/fabricated certain goods in the factory. These goods were meant for installation at site for construction of ropeway. It was alleged that the appellants brought constructed ropeway through their contractor M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd. as well as sub-contractor. 3. Show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the ropeway and supply of all necessary information to them. The department was itself never sure of its stand and the work in fact was going on right since 1979 in full view of everyone. The departmental officers including Anti Evasion and Audit party visited the factory a number of times. Even all queries about the projects were often asked and replied to. It was impossible for the department not to know that the Ropeway was under construction as no one visiting the factory could have missed it. In this context there can be no question of any suppression. In view of this extended period for time provided under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could not be invoked. 5. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. Show cause notice does not anywhere indicate the ingredients which could be looked upon as a basis for invoking extended period. In fact show cause notice itself in para 2 admits that during the course of audit of the records of the unit and while having a round of the factory the internal Audit party found that in June 1981 the appellants had manufactured and installed an aerial ropeway. The order of the Collector in paragraphs 24, 26, itself admit that information was supplied by M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd. vide their letter dated 8-12-1982. The show cause notice does not allege that duty of Excise has not been levied or paid for reasons of fraud, collusion, or wilful mis-statement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The show cause notice does not allege deliberate or wilful withholding of any information. In fact the information such as was required was available in 1982 itself.Considering the size of Ropeway and the area to which it is extended, it is not possible to conceive that there could have been any concealment or suppression on the part of the appellants considering particularly in this context that the officers had been visiting the factory. This apart, mere non-declaration, as has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. H.M.M. Ltd. (supra) cannot establish any wilful withholding of vital information for the purpose of evasion of excise duty due on the said product as there could be bona fide belief that goods were attach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
