9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ports the impugned order. We have heard both sides. 2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of powerlooms as well as winding machines and spare parts, was filing price lists from time to time and on approval of the same, was clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty. The dispute in this appeal relates to machines covered by price list in Part II in respect of the period October, 1982 to September, 1987. Appellant was maintaining RG 1 register and other registers in respect of machines and spare parts. There was surprise inspection on 29-9-1987 when the officers came across order registers for 1987-88 and 1984-85 which contained entries of orders received by the workshop from the office in respect of spare parts for replacement an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the coming year and inclusion of the price thereof in the price of the machine shown in the contract. It was also contended that all the facts were within the knowledge of the officers concerned and there was no suppression of any material aspect as alleged. Overruling these contentions, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. 3. Before the show cause notice, the amount covered by the demand was paid by the appellant under protest. Pages 22 to 57 contain a list of the dates on which clearances of replacement and spare parts had been made and the total amount of duty required to be paid but not paid at the time of clearances. It is contended for the appellant that the anticipated cost of the replacement part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice and, therefore, the larger period of limitation would not be available. We have gone through the show cause notice and the annexure thereto. The notice itself states that the manufacture of spare parts produced for replacement, breakage or shortage was not accounted for in RG 1 register, that the Assistant Manager of Stores of the appellant admitted this fact, that the Sales Manager of the appellant gave a statement of the quantum and duty involvement of spare parts removed by the appellant during the period in question without payment of duty. The notice specifically alleged that the appellant had suppressed the fact of production of such parts in their documents as also in the excise documents and thereafter removed surreptitiou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y return is to be filed, the date on which such return is so filed is the relevant date. The period of limitation has to be reckoned from this date in the present case. The alternative dates contemplated in the clause are not attracted. We, therefore, agree that the period in respect of which demand has been confirmed goes beyond the period of five years stipulated in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act and a part of the demand is barred by limitation. This has to be worked out afresh by the adjudicating authority. 6. We set aside the impugned order to the extent indicated above and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for confirmation of demand for the period allowed by the proviso to Section 11A of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
