9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty provided, inter alia, the value of the goods cleared did not exceed ₹ 30-lakhs per year under Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-1977 as amended by Notification No. 246/77. The appellants were under the impression that they need not have the licence of Central Excise until they exceed 80% of the exemption limit of clearance under each of the Tariff Items. There was a declaration filed by them under Notification No. 111/78 on 31-1-1979. Similar declarations were filed by them on 7-4-1980 and 6-4-1981 also. These declarations, inter alia, gave the value of the goods cleared during the preceding financial year in each case. 2. When they filed the declaration on 7-4-1980 for the year 1980-81 giving the value of clearances, the Rang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons over ₹ 20 lakhs during the year 1980-81, comprising both commodities. Therefore, they were not entitled to the exemption of Notification No. 80/81, dated 19-6-1980. Collector demanded duty on clearances valued at ₹ 3,05,040/- for the year 1981-82 and on the value of ₹ 4.41,042.50 for the year 1980-81. He further imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- on the appellants. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants came up in appeal before us. 6. In the appeal before us, they submitted that the demand of duty is barred by limitation and should be set aside and that the penalty imposed was not correct in law as they did not contravene any provisions of Central Excise Law. They submitted further that they never removed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the value of clearances thereof and also that they are maintaining some accounts prescribed by the Collector in his Trade Notice In the absence of any clandestine removal, there was no question of any demand beyond the normal period of limitation. 9. The appellants further submitted that the value of Tariff Item 68 goods spares (added in Invoice No. 50, dated 31-1-1981) at ₹ 26,000/- should be deducted as also ₹ 11,465/- which was the amount of discount given by them but disallowed. A further deduction is the Invoice No. 48, dated 301-1981 already included in the simple account under Tariff Item 68 but not taken into account. These demands taken together which should be legitimately allowed to them would bring the total c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent, the mere mention of Rule 173(Q) and Rule 9(2) in the Show Cause Notice would amount to a justification for the enlargement of the period of den;;nd from the normal limit of six months from the date of show cause notice to five years therefrom. As enlargement of limitation period from six months to five year is a drastic step, the reasons for doing so should, in fairness, be clearly spelt out in the Show Cause Notice and the allegations are required to be stated fully and unambiguously to establish the legality of invoking the extended time-limit and to enable the licensee to properly defend himself. We do not see that such reasons are recorded in the Show Cause Notice. The Revenue s argument is that mere mention of Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly not deliberate and not so serious mis-declaration as to warrant invoking the proviso to Sec. 11(A) and the clearances by the factory under both Tariff Items 45 and 68 cannot be deemed as clandestine as it appears that these were with the knowledge of the Central Excise Department. Besides, the show cause notice does not make an allegation of clandestine removal. The Collector s order not only does not contain any finding that the goods were removed clandestinely, but hardly deals with the pertinent issue of legality of invoking the extended time-limit, on which the appellants had dwelt at length in their reply to the show cause notice. 13. The show cause notice not having invoked the proviso to Section 11A with material on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
