9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the manufacturer and Rs. 10,000/- each on the Managing Director, Production Planning Officer, Manager (Excise) and Warehouse in-charge of the manufacturer. 2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cabinets bearing the name visadex and was clearing the cabinets paying duty on the approved value. 3. The dispute in the appeals relate to the period September 1982 to August 1987. Officers of the preventive and intelligence headquarters, Bombay visited the factory and checked the stock of cabinets in the bonded store-room and noticed that cabinets along with card pockets were kept together in the bonded store room. They questioned various officers of the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me customers who desired the same under two separate invoices. They also contended that there was no suppression of any material fact and all facts were being disclosed to the Department from time to time and the Department was also aware of the real state-of-affairs and, therefore, larger period of limitation was not available. They further contended that there was no justification for imposition of penalty. 5. overruling all these contentions, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay passed the impugned order. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant made submissions on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. The sum and substance of the case of the Department is that card pocket is an integral part of visadex cabinet and cabinets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and manufacture of file systems. 2. Clearance of card pockets and certain other articles. The letter stated as follows : It was also seen from the trade price list of cabinet systems (Printed price list) that the assessee sells the following goods without payment of duty. 1. Card pockets ............................ Please clarify and intimate quantity, value and duty involved of the above products cleared in the past". It is pointed out by Shri K. Srivastava, SDR that copy of the letter sent by the appellant in reply of this letter has not been placed before us. This letter dated 18-9-1979 would clearly indicate that as early as in 1979 the Department was aware that the appellant was selling card pockets without payment of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacturer had intention to evade duty cannot be accepted and the larger period of limitation under proviso to section 11A(1) of the Act cannot be availed and notice is barred by time. 8. Various aspects of the question arising on merits were not properly dealt with or considered by the adjudicating authority. The basic question is whether card pocket is an integral part of cabinet. The Department and the Manufacturer took diametrically opposite stands. The manufacturer further contended that all buyers of cabinets do not buy pockets from the appellants. The cabinets can be used without using the card pockets and card pocket is sought only by those customers who desired some support for holding cards. According to Shri K. Srivastava, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
