9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of metal containers and the demand is made for the year 1979-80 to 30-4-1984. He submits that on 23-10-1979, the appellants wrote to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise explaining the process of manufacture of metal containers and the Officer made endorsement of that letter to the effect that the items of utensils made of aluminium circles as stated in the letter and sample shown are exempted from Central Excise duty. He submits that the Revenue was aware of the process of manufacture of metal containers since 23-10-1979. Hence the demand is time-barred. 4. He further submits that the Addl. Collector, Central Excise in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Collector, Central Excise held that no such letter was made available in the official record, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this letter. 7. In view of this factual position, we are unable to agree with the contention of the appellants that they had informed the Revenue regarding their manufacturing process in the year 1979. 8. In the impugned order, the Addl. Collector, Central Excise, relied upon the comments offered by the Anti-Evasion Cell in respect of the reply to the show cause notice filed by the appellants. The comments as noted in the impugned order are reproduced below : The submissions made by the party that the show cause notice is issued to them is based on misapprehensions of facts is not correct and is bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch clearly falls under Item 27(f) of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and the same is liable to Central Excise duty. The party had also shown this product as Aluminium Boxes in the sale invoices issued by them to the various purchasers. The explanation-I given below the Tariff Item 27 satisfies this product as Aluminium Containers. Now the party had produced a photocopy of letter dated 23-10-1979 along with the reply to the show cause notice on 28-5-1986 addressed to the Superintendent, MOR-VII, MOD-III, Central Excise, Rajouri Garden by M/s. Jindal Tin Industries, for obtaining clarification regarding classification of Aluminium boxes (Containers) being manufactured by them and whether this product is liable to Central Excise duty or not. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Anti-Evasion Branch was disclosed to the appellants before passing adjudication order and these comments were relied upon by the Addl. Collector, Central Excise in the impugned order. 10. In these circumstances, we hold that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the learned Additional Collector, Central Excise, Delhi did not supply the comments of the Anti-Evasion Branch in respect of the reply to the show cause notice to the appellants and no opportunity was granted to the appellants to rebut the comments made by the Anti-Evasion Branch. 11. In this case, the demand relates to the period 1979-80 to 30-4-1984 and these proceedings were initiated by the Revenue by issuing a show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
