9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Natarajan, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR and N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. M/s. Havukal Tea Produce Co. (P) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Black Tea . In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner demanded duty of over Rs. 57.5 lakhs (BED + AED) along with Education Cess of Rs. 8,488/- for the period 1-4-2000 to 28-2-2005 from the appellants in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 28-3-2006, wherein the extended period of limitation had been invoked on the ground of suppression of facts. The ld. Commissioner also imposed a penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned demand of duty is conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of duty. In the present appeal, the assessee has not claimed any case on merits. Their challenge to the demand is on the ground of limitation. 2. The SCN, which invoked the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, alleged, inter alia, that some of the so-called small tea growers did not, in fact, qualify to be small tea growers in terms of the Notifications and that this fact was suppressed by the noticee. Vis-a-vis this allegation, the assessee, in their reply, stated that, at the commencement of every fiscal year, they were possessed of documents which indicated that the raw material-suppliers were small tea growers . Documents referred to by the assessee are (a) Certificate issued by the Village Administrative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gating officers, they had given information regarding AIT Returns but had not stated that such information had been divulged to the assessee also. The ld. counsel has referred to these witnesses also in the context of his endeavour to meet the charge of suppression levelled against the assessee. It is submitted by the JCDR that some of the so-called small tea growers had, in fact, leased out of a part of their agricultural land and had not shown the same as part of tea cultivation in their declarations made to the assessee. As against this case of the Revenue, ld. counsel submits that the Tea Board considered even the tenants of such tea growers as tea growers for the purpose of subsidy. In other words, tea growers who were owners in po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idencing the small tea grower status of the prospective raw material suppliers. The V.A.O s certificates and the Tea Board s Registration Certificate clearly indicated the extent of tea cultivated land held by the respective tea growers. These are statutory documents, in favour of which there is a presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, which, of course, is a rebuttal presumption. The Revenue wanted to rebut on the strength of AIT Returns retrieved from the Agricultural Income Tax Department of the State Government. These returns were filed by the tea growers returning income earned not only from tea cultivation but also other agricultural sources and the tea-cultivated land as shown in these returns was above 10 Ha, but thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
