9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants entered into a contract No. VSP/Con-T/26/1982-83, dated 2-8-1982 with M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Project (VSP) for supply, fabrication and erection of building steel structures in the Sinter Plant Zone Part-II of V.S.P.; that VSP supplied them duty paid raw material such as angles, plates, channels, etc.; that they merely cut the raw materials to specific lengths and punch holes and weld the same at the requisite places; that these loose parts, in a semi-finished condition, were transported to the erection site and were erected through a piece by piece process on a firmly mounted platform which ultimately emerged as a shed. The learned Advocate, further submitted, that besides the process undertake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any Central Excise licence; that the Central Excise law places legal obligations on an assessee in a positive way which cannot be wished away; that under Self Removal Procedure duty is cast upon the assessee to intimate to the Department about goods manufactured and cleared by him; that as such extended period of limitation is invokable in the present matter. 4. We have considered the plea of both the sides. We find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate that there was no suppression of facts on their part as the fact of fabrication and erection work undertaken by them was known to the Department. The Department has issued a show cause notice to them in 1984 in respect of structurals fabricated by them for M/s. V.S.P. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re there was scope for doubt as to whether licence was required to be taken out or where there was scope for doubt whether goods were dutiable or not, would not attract Section 11A(1) of the Act. In the said case, the Apex Court held that five-year period was inapplicable as there were materials to suggest that there was scope for confusion and the Appellants believed that the goods came within the purview of the concept of handicrafts and as such were exempt. Thus following the ratio of these judgments, we hold that there was no suppression of facts in the present matter in view of the said Adjudication Order passed by the Deputy Collector and the demand is time barred. We, therefore, allow the appeal on time limit itself without going in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
