9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm in terms of Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The facts relevant for the purpose of the said appeal are as under : - 2.1. The appellant firm is a Government of India Undertaking and engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of ship-building and ship-repairing and other general engineering products. At the relevant point of time, they were holding licences for the manufacture of diesel engine, electric motors, deck machinery equipments, metal containers and goods falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. 2.2. Vide the show cause notice dated 2-6-1981, a demand of Rs. 19,95,030.00 was raised against the appellants herein on the ground that during the years, 1976-77 and 1977-78, they had manufactured and removed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as leviable on the ships. By referring to a Customs Notification No. 163/65-Cus., which exempted ocean-going vessels, he submits that throughout the period involved in the instant appeal, both the sides were under an impression that the Central Excise Duty was also not leviable on their goods in question. He, further, submits that the things became clear with the issuance of a Notification No. 102/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980. He also submits that wide publicity was given in regard to the manufacture and clearance of the ships through the electronic media and newspapers and as such, it cannot be said that the manufacture of the ships in question was a secret activity done by the appellant firm without the knowledge of their jurisdictional Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our careful consideration to the submissions made from both sides. The appellants have not argued on merits of the case. Their own case is that the demand having been raised after a period of six months from the relevant date, is barred by limitation, inasmuch as the larger period is not available to the Department. For their above submissions, they have relied upon only on the fact that the ship was not manufactured clandestinely by them. But the activity of manufacturing and clearance was given wide publicity through the electronic media and through the newspapers. 7. We find that factually the same pleas were taken by the appellants before the Tribunal in their earlier case, which was not accepted by the Tribunal and the appeal was rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en before us there was no denial that the amount related to a period beyond limitation. We are unable to accept Shri Asthana s plea for remand because apart from our being convinced that the appellants claim is correct remand cannot be converted to a convenient way to enable the Department to make good their omissions. We order that this amount be deducted from the amount of demand. The remaining amount of duty demanded is confirmed. 8. As is evident from a reading of the above paragraph, the appellants contention that publicity amounts to imparting knowledge to the Central Excise Department about their activity of ship-manufacturing, has not been accepted by the Tribunal, by observing that the same does not amount to a declaration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
