9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellants were charged with an allegation that they had not included the value of the inputs received from M/s. Asea Brown Boweri Ltd. (ABBL) in the assesseeable value of the final goods manufactured by them on job work basis. They have also been imposed with penalty. 2. The ld. Counsel did not argue on the merits of the case. He made a submission that the demands cannot be confirmed on extended period, as there was no suppression in the matter. It is his submission that the details were all taken by the Department from the records maintained by the appellants. All the details were furnished to the Department and were known and it was also submitted that even if ABBL in the collateral proceedings had paid duty on the inputs moved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts, which are sustainable within six months, and it is only to an extent of Rs. 15,300/-, which the party is willing to discharge. 4. On a careful consideration of the submission and on perusal of the allegations made in the facts of this case, it is seen that the Department had verified the records and documents maintained by the appellants in the factory. They had seen that the appellant had filed declaration under 173B mentioning about the receipt of inputs from the ABBL under Rule 57F(2). They had also maintained several registers wherein all the details had been incorporated. The same had been audited from time to time. In a situation where the details had been taken by the Department on the basis of all the documents maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re [1989 (4) S.C.C. 275] this Court has held that something positive other than on are inaction or failure on part of the manufacturer or producer of conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required to be established before it is saddled with any liability beyond the period of six months. The Court pertinently observed that mere failure or negligence in case where there was scope for doubt as to whether licence was required to be taken out or where there was scope for doubt whether goods were dutiable or not would not attract Section 11A of the Act. 11. In the present case also, there is no material on record from which it could be inferred or established that duty of excise was not levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
