9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lans to various merchant manufacturers, confirmed duty of Rs. 5,23,767/- of another quantity of processed MMF removed illicitly by the above assessee (processor of textile fabrics) and duty of Rs. 71,135/- on a different quantity of illicitly removed processed MMF. The clearance of the goods on which these two demands have been raised and confirmed is to M/s. Pankaj Silk Mills. The Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- upon the processor, ordered confiscation of land, plant, building, machinery etc. used in the manufacture/storage/removal of the offending excisable goods, i.e. processed texturised fabrics with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon chairman-cum- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice proposing confiscation of seized goods was issued in 1995 itself (the period of dispute in this case is the month of April, 1995), the extended period of limitation is not available to the department, since all the facts relevant for the purpose of issue of 1999 show cause notice were already in the knowledge of the authorities when the first show cause notice was issued and, therefore, the mills cannot be held guilty of any suppression, in the light of the Supreme Court s decision cited supra. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned DR, it is not that the show cause notice giving rise to the present adjudication order has relied only upon certain invoices and delivery challans but also upon statements of several merchant manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record and investigation was completed and then the show cause notice with all the facts was issued. We, therefore, hold that the notice adjudicated by the present order is not hit by time-bar. While confirming the duty demands, we also uphold the liability of mills to penalty. The penalty on its chairman-cum-managing director is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The confiscation of land, plant, building, machinery etc. of the processors is set aside, as we are not satisfied that this is a case warranting such severe action against the assessees. 4. In the result, appeal No. E/3701/2000 filed by the processors and appeal No. E/3702/2000 filed by the chairman-cum-managing director are partly allowed as above. 5. As f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
