9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich it had omitted to do when the disposing of the appeal on merits by its earlier Order No. 1935/96-WRB, dated 23-5-1996. 2. The facts briefly are that the appellants manufacture various types of blood pressure measuring instruments and they claimed exemption under Notification No. 179/77 on the ground that their manufacturing activity was undertaken without the aid of power. It was however noticed by the department that part of the activity of manufacturing like drilling, tapping and spray painting of the boxes for these instruments were carried out with the aid of power and hence the demand was raised by issue of show cause notice dated 20-2-1986 for the period 1-4-1980 to 18-10-1985 invoking the longer period under Section 11A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as further pleaded by the ld. Counsel that under these circumstances, the appellants cannot be said to have suppressed facts from the department. The ld. counsel also relied upon the Tribunal decision in Collector v. Bombay Food Pvt. Ltd. - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 748 in which the Tribunal had held that use of power in manufacture of components will not affect eligibility to exemption of goods assembled without aid of power out of components manufactured with the aid of power. The ld. Counsel submitted that only after the Supreme Court laid down the law in the case of Standard Fireworks Industries v. Collector - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 56 that the position in this regard became clear. The ld. counsel pointed out that though the Commissioner held that one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court decision in the case of Limenaph Chemicals v. U.O.I. - (1993) 44 ECC 79. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. The question whether the appellants had deliberately withheld the information from the department with the intention to evade duty has to be examined. In this context, the letter of 23-6-1981 shows that the correspondance had originated even earlier in April 1981; the Supdt. of the Central Excise range having jurisdiction had visited the factory along with the Inspector. They had also in that letter given their understanding of the eligibility of exemption under Notification 179/77 and asked for a confirmation. There is another letter dated 14-4-1981 written by them to Range Supdt. indicating that they had alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that the appellants had disclosed that there was another job worker for doing the spray painting of the boxes and other job worker M/s. Sparking Industrial Painters had also given a statement which would indicate that he was doing spray painting on the appellants boxes as an independent job worker. It is also true in this context that the position in law relating to the interpretation of the term `manufacture without the aid of power became clear only when the law was laid down by the Supreme Court in Standard Fireworks (supra). Therefore, on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances in this case, it will be reasonable to hold that the demand of duty for the period beyond the normal period of six months in this case will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
