9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh) has also been imposed under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots, alloy steel ingots and stainless steel ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the period from October, 1990 to August, 1993, the appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-88 and clearing their final product without payment of duty. Inasmuch as the appellants had used waste and scrap in the manufacture of the ingots in question, the Revenue was of the view that the benefit of Notification No. 202/88 is not available to the appellants inasmuch as the waste and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He submits that the appellants had been filing the monthly returns in Form RT-12 with the Central Excise Authorities giving full details about the goods manufactured by them. All the statutory Central Excise records in the form of RG-I register were being maintained and the goods were being cleared on Central Excise Gate Passes. He also submits that the appellants were filing RT-5 returns declaring the main raw materials as melting scrap. In the said returns, the figures of Opening Balance, Quantity Received, Quantity Used and Closing Balance etc. of melting scrap as well as the quantity of ingots manufactured during the relevant quarter, were also mentioned. These RT-5 returns were regularly checked with reference to entire connected rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was done with mala fide intention. He submits that both the Notifications were mentioned in the Classification Lists and it was difficult for the Revenue to find out as to whether the waste and scrap was being used in the manufacture of ingots which were ultimately cleared under Notification No. 202/88 or under Notification No. 44/93. As such, he submits that the appellants have deliberately evaded Central Excise duty and longer period has been rightly invoked by the Commissioner. 6. After giving our careful consideration to the issue of limitation raised by the appellants, we find that admittedly the show cause notice is beyond the normal period of six months, as provided under Section 11A. Longer period of limitation of five years can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only ground for the Revenue to invoke the longer period is that the appellants claimed two exemption Notifications in the Classification Lists thus misleading the Revenue. Though it has not been clearly discussed by the Commissioner, but his reason seems to be that the Revenue was under the impression that wherever waste and scrap is being used as input, the appellants are clearing the goods at concessional rate of duty in terms of the Notification No. 44/93 and they were not aware that they were claiming the benefit of Notification No. 202/88, even where the waste and scrap was used as one of the inputs. However, the Revenue has not denied the knowledge of use of waste and scrap by the appellants. It is also on record that the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
