9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice dated 13-12-1990 issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay that the appellants had not filed at the proper time the classification list, price list and had cleared the excisable goods without proper gate passes and had also not filed RT 12 returns with the proper officer. It was alleged in the show cause notice that it amounted to the suppression of facts. The Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay who adjudicated the matter confirmed a demand of Rs. 629.64 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/-. 2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today s hearing had been duly issued to the appellants on 8-12-1998. There is no request for adjournment. As the matter is old - deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture and have removed the goods for captive consumption without payment of Central Excise duty. He referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Kin Engg. Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 1990 (30) ECR 1999 (Tribunal) where it had been observed that it is not necessary that word suppression should be specifically mentioned in the show cause notice if the facts are otherwise mentioned in the notice. He also referred to the Tribunals decision in the case of Punjab Anand Lamp Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 628 (T) = 1989 (23) ECR 218 (Tribunal) where it has been observed that under the self-removal procedure the manufacturer was responsible for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation was not invokable when the appellants had been contesting the earlier demands. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the nature of items involved, we consider that the decisions referred to by the ld. SDR are not applicable and that there was no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation in this case particularly when the same issue had earlier been taken up by the department as early as in the year 1988. 7. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, we consider that the appellants had a case on limitation. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order in original on the limited ground of limitation only. 8. As a result, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
