9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of the manufacture of the above two bulk drugs, are as under : (i) 2-Thiophene Aldehyde (THA); (ii) Pyrantel Citrate (PC); (iii) Dimethyl Tetra Hydropyrimidine (THP); and (iv) 3-Methyl Thiophene-2-Aldehyde (3 MTA). 2. A show cause notice dated 26-2-1991 seeking to recover excise duty on the aforesaid intermediate products to the tune of Rs. 50,60,462.00 for the period from 1-3-1986 to 29-2-1988, was issued. 3. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority has found that the said four intermediate products are marketable and he has also found that there was a suppression of facts on the part of the appellants herein and hence, the show cause notice is not barred by time and consequently, he confirmed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deep bluish green to brown. In the face of this evidence, learned Advocate has submitted that the four intermediate products on which duty is demanded are not marketable. 6. On the other hand, the adjudicating authority has found that the aforesaid products are not produced in continuous process of manufacture meaning thereby that they are produced in batches. It has also been alleged in the show cause notice that the four intermediate products are of high purity of above 99.9% or 99.94%. In view of this, he held that the products though may not have been sold are marketable. We find that there is no evidence of marketability adduced by the department. While such a burden falls on the Revenue to discharge, we may also state at this st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has found that the appellants had not mentioned the intermediate products in their classification list and consequently, there was a suppression of material facts from the Departmental Authorities and hence larger limitation has been rightly invoked. 9. Learned JDR, Shri R.K. Roy reiterates the above findings of the adjudicating authority on both the points i.e. of marketability and of limitation. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We observe, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate, that the Department has not adduced any evidence of marketability of the products in question although it is Revenue's burden to adduce the evidence to that effect. Nevertheless, we note that the Revenue had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration at the higher level. In the face of this evidence, it cannot be held that the appellants in any way had suppressed the material information from the Revenue Authorities for the purpose of classifying these goods and ultimately charging the duty thereon. In these circumstances, invocation of larger limitation of five years is not called for. Hence the show cause notice is barred by time for demand of duty for the relevant financial year, 1986-88. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, we set aside the demand of duty of Rs. 50,60,467.00. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh is also not warranted. We set aside the same. Appeal disposed of in the above manner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
