9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification 105/80. It is contended that these declarations had been filed in time for the periods 1980-81 to 1990-91, although this is a matter of doubt as will presently be seen. It is further contended that no dispute was raised by the department subsequent to filing these declarations. The department however issued notice dated 9-7-1991 alleging that appellant did not pay duty on the mild steel pipes manufactured and cleared without payment of duty from 20-5-1988 to 10-5-1991. The notice also proposed confiscation of a consignment seized from the appellant s premises. 2. The assessee took the stand, in reply to the notice, that it had filed declarations claiming the notification granting exemption from payment of duty to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ression that no duty was payable had no intention to evade payment of duty and hence the demand is barred by limitation. The Supreme Court s judgement in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. C.C.E. - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) = 1994 (55) ECR 7(S.C.) is cited in support. 5. The departmental representative adopts the reasonings in the impugned order. 6. It is first of all not very clear as to whether all the declarations stated to have been filed for 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 had actually been filed and if so whether they were filed within the appropriate time. 7. In addition to seeing the photocopies produced in the appeal, I have seen the original produced at the time of hearing all the declarati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial before them to conclude that the appellant manufactured these goods but did not pay duty on them. There could then be a basis for invoking the extended period unless ofcourse the appellant is able to establish that it entertained the belief that the goods were not liable to duty. These issues are not at all discussed in the order of the Collector and I am of the view that they should be properly examined. On this being pointed out to the advocate for the appellant, he says that he will be able to satisfy the Commissioner on these points but seeks access to the department s records at the range to establish that the declarations were received. While I accept this request, I made it clear that the burden to prove that they were which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
