9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise duty of Rs. 43,83,440/- on the Hubs for the said period and proposing to impose penalties on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand was based on the allegation that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86 was not available to the Hubs manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the aforesaid period. The demand was raised by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act, which was based on the allegation that the appellants had wilfully suppressed material facts from the Department to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The proposal for penalty under Section 11AC was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Kumar, Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur; (2) Statements of the appellants' customers; (3) Depositions of Shri Amarjeet Singh and Shri Bankey Bihari Agarwal in cross-examination/re-examination; (4) Invoices issued by M/s. Pahuja Engg. Co. (Agra) to M/s. Niranjan & Co. (Kanpur); (5) Purchase account of CI castings filed by M/s. Pahuja Engg. Co. for the year 1999-2000. The appellants have denied the allegations of the Department by submitting that Dr. Prashant Kumar's report was not adequate basis for the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely Hubs of Bullock Carts", (ii) no objection whatsoever had been raised by the Department in respect of such declaration, (iii) the appellants had been filing RT 12 returns regularly with the Department and the same had been assessed without any objection, and (iv) the invoices relating to the clearances of Hubs had also been submitted along with the RT12 returns. The appellants have also contended that no penalty was liable to be imposed on them as they had only acted in accordance with law. 3. The first and foremost question to be considered is whether the Hubs manufactured and removed by the appellants were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E. ibid. The appellants have claimed exemption in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... othing else. There is no scope for any intendment with regard to the entry. Therefore, the exemption which is available to axle cannot be extended to any particular part thereof. The DR has contended that Hubs are distinct products and cannot be equated to axles or wheels. 5. We have examined the arguments. It appears from the submissions of both the sides that they admit the fact that a Hub is a part of wheel and a wheel is a part of Axle assembly. The term used in Sl. No. 21(b)(ii) in the Table annexed to the notification is "Axles". It is not the same as Axle assembly, but only a part of it. Likewise wheels are also a part of Axle assembly. Wheels and Axles have been separately specified under the notification. They are distinct pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether they were used in ADVs or not. 6. The question which now arises for consideration is whether the appellants had concealed material facts from the department with intent to evade payment of duty. They were regularly filing declarations under Rule 173B and also Modvat declarations from time to time. They were filing RT12 returns and the same were being duly assessed. "Hubs of Bullock carts" were specifically mentioned in all the relevant records. The Department has not raised any objection at any stage before issuance of the show cause notice. These are the appellants' pleadings. We find that, in their declarations filed under Rule 173B with the Department from time to time, the appellants had described the goods either as "Hubs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they did under Rule 173B was misdeclaration with intention to claim the benefit of exemption, which was not available to the goods. The appellants never declared the goods correctly as Hubs of tractor trolleys. They suppressed the material fact with the above intent. They declared the goods as Hubs "solely designed to be used in wheels of ADVs", in which the intention to avail the benefit of exemption in terms of Sl. No. 21(b) was apparent. Thus the allegation of suppression and misstatement with intention to evade payment of duty stands proved in this case. The DR has successfully relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Sri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. [2003 (153) E.L.T. 494 (S.C.)]. In that case, the goods in question was glass whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
