9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or manufacture of A.C.S.R. and were paying duty thereon. In order to avail the benefit of exemption from duty on goods falling under Tariff Item 68, the appellants submitted a declaration under Notification No. 111/78 (exemption being from licensing control under Tariff Item 68 giving a certain declaration as per the prescribed form under the said notification against Item No. 4, 5 6 as follows : 4. Full description of the goods (item wise) manufactured by the factory. (1) M.S. Pipe (2) Tubular trueses (3) H.B. Wire (4) Wire Nails 5. Value/Quantity of the goods (item wise) year : cleared during the proceeding financial 1983-84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovered by show cause notice dated 16-8-1984. The said amount of duty has been confirmed by the lower authorities and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has also been sustained by the Lower Appellate Authority on the appellants. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Advocate, Shri N. Mookherjee submits that the demand is barred by time inasmuch as the fact of manufacture of A.C.S.R. cables and their clearances were known to the department since their main line of manufacture was of A.C.S.R.; the goods under Tariff Item 68 were only a secondary line of manufacture of the appellants. While he admits that the declaration filed under Notification 111/78 was only in respect of Tariff Item 68 and did not include the manufacture and clearances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larger limitation of five years has been rightly invoked. The amount of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- sustained by the Lower Appellate Authority having regard to the amount of evasion of duty is also not unreasonable. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the appeal. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. Only plea before us is regarding the limitation. We find from the declaration filed under Notification 111/78 that full and correct declaration has not been made by the appellants. This is admitted to the appellants themselves. Ld. Counsel is, however, banking upon the fact of knowledge that the appellant s main manufacture was of A.C.S.R. cables which was known to the Department in some other documents submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
