9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpts PVC Compounds having specific gravity of the product less than 1.28 from the whole of the Central Excise duty. On test by Deputy Chief Chemist, Custom House however found the samples had specific gravity of more than 1.28. Show cause notice, therefore, was issued to the appellants demanding differential duty. The Collector confirmed the demand of duty and ordered them to pay the amount of Rs. 1,41,456/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. 3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Consultant submits that soon after the receipt of test results on 9-4-1987 they wrote to the Supdt. vide their letter dated 20th May, 1987 pointing out that there appeared an error in the test done by the Customs House laboratory and they would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification exempts PVC only if it has specific gravity of less than 1.28. In view of the categorical test results of Deputy Chief Chemist and keeping in view the fact that the appellants did not opt for re-test, the contrary test reports maintained by their own laboratory or other agencies in the absence of any reasons to shake the credibility of the Chief Chemist s testing cannot be accepted. On merits, we have to hold that the appellants are not eligible to the exemption. We however, note that they were intimated the test results on 9-4-1987 and show cause notice was issued on 10-10-1988 for the period 19-9-1986 to 11-11-1986. Our attention was specifically drawn to letter dated 20th May, 1987 addressed by the appellants to the Supdt. af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty. When a person over the years manufactures a product having specific gravity of 1.26, and the products are sold to a specific class of buyers as contened before us by the Learned Consultant, one can reasonably presume that when he makes a statement based on past experience it can only be bonafide unless the other side leads evidence to prove malafide. No such evidence is forthcoming from the records. There has to be a positive suppression to invoke extended period. In fact when this matter came up for prima facie consideration for the grant of stay the Tribunal at that very stage observed that they were prima facie of the view that there was no wilful suppression in this matter to invoke extended period of time under Proviso to Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
