9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he knowledge of the department as such extended period was not applicable and the demand was time-barred. I find Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. C.C.E. - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 (T) has held that limitation of five years was available even when deptt. had knowledge of facts. Therefore, Order-in-Appeal passed by adjudicating authority is upheld. Appeal rejected . 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cold-Rolled Strips of non-alloy steel and steel tubes. During the course of audit it was noticed that the appellants received 373.797 MTs of imported H.R. Coil of thickness 2.3 mm from SAIL, Bombay. Appellants had thereafter shown manufacture of 373.797 MTs of H.R. Tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever raised any objection; that the appellant s factory was regularly visited by the Central Excise Officers; that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued much beyond a period of six months; that there was no suppression or misstatement so as to invoke longer period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned Counsel also submitted that in the gate passes and other duty paying documents the description of the goods was given as steel tubes made out of imported HR coils; that this clearly illustrated that the imported HR coils were not being rolled to reduce the thickness and since the thickness shown in gate passes was the same as that of the imported HR coils, the allegation of tubes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that there was misstatement/non-statement of facts, therefore, the longer period has correctly been invoked. 7. We have heard the rival submission. We have also perused the facts on records as also the case law. We note in the instant case that thickness of the tubes supplied by the appellant was less as was evident from the gauges. The admitted position is that appellant did not have any hot-rolling facility available with them. We also note further that cold-rolling was being done by the appellant through others. Since thickness cannot be reduced without hot-rolling or cold-rolling and cold-rolling has been established, therefore, the tubes manufactured out of cold-rolled coils/strips have rightly been subjected to duty. We do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
