9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding to the notices issued earlier, by the officers, when the father was the proprietor where the departmental officers had commenced enquiries against the activities of the said firm and a notice was issued on 18-4-2004 to show cause as to why excise duty for the period 10-1-1993 to 28-2-2004 not be demanded on the polyethylene speckled fusible interlining cloth cleared during that period. Seven more such notices covering the period 1-3-94 to 30-6-96 were thereafter issued. The appellant appeared before the Assistant Commissioner, who after considering the material vide Order dated 17-1-1997 set aside the notices. It was held that the goods processed by the appellants were not excisable and not liable to duty. Consequently, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed. 2. After hearing both sides, and considering the submissions made by the ld Advocate, who stressed only the points of limitation in this appeal, it is found: (a) that Shri S.R. Rasal present proprietor was involved in the business of the firm when owned by his father is evident from the order-in-Original dated 17-1-1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, wherein para 3 thereof it is recorded that the personal hearing was attended by him on 16-10-1996. In this view of the matter, the change in proprietorship of the firm due to death of R.V. Rasal, father of the present proprietor and the earlier proprietor, it can be said that the proprietor of the firm was having a bona fide belief, which was confirmed vide Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whether or not certain activity amounted to manufacture, the proviso clause invoked when there is no evidence or proof that licence was not taken out and or duty not paid on account of any fraud, collision, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Following this view of the law and the facts in this case, also the registration had been surrender and new registration had not been obtained, nor declaration filed by the appellants, a bona fide was entertained therefore, the demand issued and confirmed in this case is barred by limitation and the duty demands therefore cannot be upheld. (d) When the duty demands are not being upheld under the proviso to Section 11A(1), there cannot be a penalty which can be upheld under Section 11AC. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
