9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i P.K. Biswas - Rs. 1 lac Penalty (3) Shri T. Maitra - Rs. 1 lac Penalty (4) Shri L.R. Garg - Rs. 1 lac Penalty 2. Shri Harish Chander, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicant No. 1 M/s. Industrial Gases Ltd. have been directed to pay the duty in respect of Oxygen Gas, Nitrogen Gas, and Liquid Nitrogen for the period from October, 1995 to July, 2000 by confirming the show cause notice dated 25-10-2000; that they are not manufacturer of the impugned goods as they had leased out their Plant with facility of staff for maintenance for giving the safety to Hindustan Zinc Ltd.; that agreements with Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL) were executed from time to time and perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imate whether the production and clearance were looked after by their staff only or otherwise, status of their company was also required to be intimated to the Range Supdt.; that the applicant No. 1 in reply dated 25-9-95 informed the Supdt. that they had given Air Separation Plant to HZL on rental basis; status of the factory of HZL is manufacturer of Oxygen, Nitrogen and Liquid Nitrogen gases; that HZL is availing the exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E.; that again the Supdt. under letter dated 5-10-95 directed them to furnish the information as to the date of starting of production at their factory site, date of shifting of plant from their factory site to the factory site of HZL, copy of rent contract entered between them and H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001. 3. Opposing the prayer Shri A.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that the examination of various contracts and work orders given by HZL reveals that the applicant No. 1 is the manufacturer. In this regard learned SDR referred to Para 14 of the show cause notice in which it was mentioned inter alia, that the plant for manufacturing the impugned goods was owned by applicant No. 1 and was under their control and being operated by their employees; cost of premium of insurance for the plant was borne by them; that they had furnished bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lakhs as security deposit-cum-performance guarantee for oxygen gas and bank guarantee for Rs. 70,000/- for Nitrogen gas; that Para 3.2 of the contract dated 13-12-90 stipulated that ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facie case on this aspect. However, we are of the view that in view of the exchange of correspondence in 1995 the department was made aware of the facts that the plant was installed in the premises of HZL and was given to them on rent by the applicants. Thus they have made out a strong prima facie case on the aspect of time limit in their favour. We observe that the show cause notice was issued on 25-10-2000 for demanding the duty for the period from October, 95 to July, 2000 and as such some period was within the normal period of time limit specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Taking into consideration all the facts and the financial position of the applicants we direct them i.e. Industrial Gases Ltd. to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
