9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise 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 also based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 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 duty against them as it was made with reference to ISI specifications whereas the appellants had manufactured the goods in question without reference to ISI specifications. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly 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 terms of Sl. No. 21(b) of the Table annexed to the Notification. This entry reads as under :- 21. (a) Animal drawn vehicles manufactured out of iron sheets, rods, bars, angles or woo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 parts of Axle assembly and are eligible for exemption under the notification. The entry at Sl. No. 21(b) of the Table annexed to the notification is clear and unambiguous. According to this entry, only two specified parts of ADV are eligible for exemption and these are Wheels and Axles . To say that this exemption is available to any part of wheel or axle is beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed. 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 of Bullock carts or as Hubs of animal drawn vehicles solely designed to be used in wheels . Shri K.M.L. Agarwal, Proprietor of the appellant concern stated that he had no blue print or design of ADV Hubs and that the Hubs were manufactured by a crude process. He also stated that he had sold about 5% of the total sale of ADV Hubs in casting form and the remaining after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 which was shown as of a particular thickness in the classification list filed by the assessee, whereas the goods cleared by them was glass of a greater thickness. The thicker glass fell into a different tariff item and higher duty was payable on it. The Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand of differential duty against the assessee. This Tribunal upheld the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
