9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n I observe that BIL was issued a licence in the year 1991, but the Assistant Collector had later cancelled the same for the reason that the operations carried out by BIL did not amount to manufacture. I also find that Departmental officers had visited the factory of BIL in the year 1996 and carried out certain investigations but without registering any case. BIL has also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Kurnool Division had issued a direction to SRAAC vide letter C.No. IV/16/42/96 dated 18-6-1996 asking them to clear Hydrogen gas through pipeline to BIL by following Rule 56B procedure. BIL further submitted that SRAAC had submitted a representation to the Commissioner vide their letter No.SRAAC/CE/96, Dated 24-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect from 1-3-1997. BIL realized it only when the officers visited the factory on 24-7-1997 and they started paying the duty from the next day i.e from 25-7-1997 onwards. This fact can also be observed from the demand notice itself, as the demand is made for the period from 1-3-1997 to 24-7-1997 only. From the above facts, it can be seen that BIL had no mala fide intention of evading payment of duty. It can also be seen that BIL could have easily availed the facility of Modvat on the goods received by them and even passed on the duty paid by them to their customers, wherever possible. Hence, it appears that BIL may not have benefited by evading duty on the goods cleared by them. So, the events leading to non-payment of duty by BIL from 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the assessee to clear the goods on payment of duty; yet the responsibility laid on the respondents to have paid the duty on introduction of Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the First Schedule. As they had not done so, therefore the larger period was invocable in the matter. 4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner has examined all the factors in the matter and has accepted the plea that there was no suppression of facts or wilful misstatement or fraud or contravention of rules with an intention to evade payment of duty. There was no mala fides involved. The assessee started paying the duty immediately when the change was brought to their notice and the Department could have issued a show cause notice well in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
