9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter relates to the demand of Central Excise duty on the product raw naphtha, which the appellants had received from Gujarat Refinery of Indian Oil Corpn. under Chapter 10 procedure for use in the manufacture of fertilizers. On audit, it was found that the quantity actually used in the manufacture of fertilizers was less than the quantity of naphtha received from Gujarat Refinery under Chapter 10 Procedure and the quantity has recorded at the time of the receipt in their own storage tanks. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellants' own in-plant accounts indicate that a quantity less than that noted in the RG-16 register has been issued in the manufacture of fertilizers. He had furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only on their own records at the stage of the flow meter. 5. The ld. Advocate also mentioned that show cause notice in this case was issued on 13-9-1971 while the demand had been raised for the period Dec., 1967 to August, 1970. A part of their process was under Physical Control System and there was Excise Office in their factory premises. There is no allegation of clandestine removal or of any use over those for which the goods have been brought by them. He referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Govt. of India v. CITER - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that even in a case where there is no period within which recovery of duty is to be made then the reasonable period woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the rejection of the appeal. He added that the demand was as a sequence to the effect [sic] and then records had to be collected so the demand could not be raised earlier than what has been done in the present case. In this regard, he referred to the observations of the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants had taken considerable time even to furnish the figures and their defence before the ld. Collector (Appeals) and after giving them a sufficient time they were not able to furnish the figures. 9. We have carefully considered the matter. The goods under consideration are raw naphtha for which concessional rate of central excise duty had been provided when it is used in the manufacture of fertilizer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are dip-reading which are supervised by the excise officers. In the show cause notice, there is no allegation of suppression or clandestine removal. It appears to be a show cause notice for demand which had been issued beyond the period of limitation. 11. During the relevant time, under Rule 10 the normal time limit for raising demand was 3 months. Of course under Rule 196, there is no time limit. But in this particular case, we find that when the goods have been received in the factory premises in their storage tank, no discrepancies had been recorded. The discrepancy is when the goods moved from their own storage tanks in the licensed premises to their own plant. At that stage, the recording was by way of flow meters. The ld. Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
