1995 (11) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1-3-1986 to 4-3-1991 by issue of show cause notice dated 28-8-1991 with an Addendum dated 9-9-1991. 2. Shri Raman, the learned Counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the demand is barred by limitation and in respect of the duty liability for the period of 6 months preceding the date of issue of the show cause notice dated 28-8-1991, the appellant is not contesting the issue on merits. In regard to the rest of the period the demand is barred by limitation because the longer period of limitation in terms of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 has been invoked. It was contended that the appellants were not guilty of suppressing any facts and the allegation of the Department was that the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not concealed from the purview of the Department any relevant piece of information with intent to evade payment of duty. It was, therefore, urged that the bona fides on the part of the appellants cannot be doubted from the circumstances available. The Department cannot impute conscious knowledge to the appellants for alleged disregard of statutory obligations with intent to evade payment of any excise duty. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in this context in the case of Tamilnadu Housing Board v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9. Reference was also made to the other ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts disclosed the factual information including the use of the brand name of others for clearances of the goods and in the communications referred to above would also show that the payment of royalty was also brought to the notice of the Department. The classification list referred to above also makes mention about the use of the brand name. Above all, we also take note of the fact that the unit continued to function in the same place under the Superintendent of the same Range. Keeping all these factors in mind we would like to refer to the allegations in the show cause notice. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the show cause notice was merely proceeded on the basis that the appellants had not furnished the mater .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X