9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting stay and waiver of the sums confirmed in the impugned order. 2. The facts being common, both the appeals are being disposed of vide this common order. 3. Shri N.K. Joshi, ld. advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K.M. Patwari, ld JDR represented the Revenue. 4. The appellants are sugar manufacturers. They had cleared certain quantities of levy sugar on payment of duty during the period 1974-75 to 1979-82. The ex-factory price of such levy sugar was fixed by Union Government in terms of Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The quantum of price was challenged by several sugar manufacturers. The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Malaprabha Co-op. Sugar Factory Ltd. v. UOI (AIR 1994 S.C. 1311) observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to confiscation in terms of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. In identical orders the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II confirmed the demands in each case. He, however, refrained from imposing the mandatory penalty or from making orders as to payment of interest. He did not pass any orders on the charge that the land, building etc. were liable to confiscation. These two appeals arise out of these orders. 6. Shri Joshi relies upon the Tribunal s Final Order Nos. C.II/1697-1704/99/WRB, dated 17-7-1999. 7. Shri Patwari supports the Commissioner s orders. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made. The provisions of Rule 9(2) have been invoked for demanding the differential duty. We find that it is not th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamined by the Supreme Court in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. CCE, Mumbai [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.)] 11. Although, the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) has been invoked, the conscious act of the assessees in the planning to evade duty had not been spelt out in the notices. This lacuna is sought to be covered by the ld. Commissioner in his impugned orders in identically worded findings which reads as follows :- The assessee have legitimately raised a point relating to invoking the extending period of proviso to Section 11A(1) and contended that the demand issued in this regard by the Excise Department are grossly time barred as the relevant clearance of sugar took place during the period from 1974-75 to 1979-80. Prima facie this argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
