9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i R.C. Sankhla, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. In the impugned order, the Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 47,182.80 under Rule 9(2) read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of submersibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow that the Notification No. 67/86, dated 10-2-1986 had been rescinded and that on 18-3-1988 they had approached the Collector and on 21-3-1988 they approached the Board for consideration of their case under Section 11C for the period 1-3-1988 to 17-4-1988. They also contended that the demand was time barred; that there was no malafide intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore prays that the demand for duty may be confirmed. 7. On the question of limitation, ld. DR submits that the appellants knew that there was no exemption available on electric motor parts captively consumed in the manufacture of submersible pump sets. He submits that inspite of knowing this fact the appellants cleared the goods without payment of duty and thus the intention to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by issue of Notification No. 142/88. Thus, we note that during the period 1-3-1988 to 17-4-1988, there was no exemption available. We, therefore hold that the demand has correctly been confirmed by the authorities below. 10. On the second issue of limitation, we note that the appellants were submitting RT 12 returns from time to time. RT 12 returns were being finally assessed by the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
