9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric fans falling under Tariff Item No. 33 of the Central Excise Tariff in their factory situated at Roynagar, Banadroni, West Bengal and they hold a licence for the purpose. Sometime in 1982 the Central Excise Department learnt that during the period 1977 to 31 3 1981 the appellants had supplied raw materials for manufacture of component parts namely fan blade planks, down rods to different job workers on job charge basis and in turn received back finished products without discharging any Central Excise duty on the full value of the goods. The Department s case is that these products resulting from job work fell under Tariff Item 68. After the usual investigation the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rules. 3. The appellants had specifically raised the plea of time-bar. They had urged that show cause notice issued on 26-8-1982 after expiry of more than one year from the period of demand-1977 to 31-3-1981 beyond the period of six months as stipulated under Section 11-A was time-barred and without jurisdiction and no action could be taken on the strength of such an invalid show cause notice. It was further urged that no allegation was made in the show cause notice to extend the period of six months to period of five years stipulated in Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. After following the usual procedure the CCE Calcutta passed order dated 8-2-1983 demanding differential duty and penalty as set out above. Agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants had, inter alia, intimated to the Assistant Collector that a good number of components i.e., fans, down rods and some other items are made in a number of small factories on cottage industry basis. 6. Shri Ravindra Narain further submitted that job work as a manufacturing concept was well known in Central Excise and for the purpose he cited Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. This notification deals with exemption of goods falling under T.I. 68 produced on job work basis. He submitted that merely because the appellants got some products manufactured by a job worker or some processes done on raw material by the job worker which were returned to the appellants would not make the appellants themselves manufacturer of these pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers - 1978 E.L.T. (J 68) M/s. Philips India Ltd. Others v. Union of India Others - 1980 E.L.T. 263 (All.) M/s. Poona Bottling Co. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others - 1981 E.L.T. 389 (Del.) P.M. Abdul Latif, Proprietor Paragon Industries and Others v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others - 1983 E.C.R. 55D (Madras) Amin Chand Payarelal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 126 (Tribunal) 7. On behalf of the Respondents Shri N. I. Ramanathan, SDR, defended the orders passed by the Collector. Shri N. V. Raghavan Iyer who at one stage intervened in the proceedings on behalf of the Respondents submitted that even though the show cause notice dated 26-8-1982 may not have contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k the said finished product without discharging any Central Excise duty. There was no allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. There was no allegation of intent to evade payment of duty. For invoking the longer time-limit of five years for demand of duty in view of Madras High Court decision in Light Roofings Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Central Excise and Two Others - 1981 E.L.T. 738 (Madras), it was necessary to allege and prove the ingredients aforesaid and intent to evade payment of duty; that is lacking in the show cause notice. That not having been done, on the strength of the show cause notice the invoking of five years period for making the demand cannot be sustained and there is no dispute tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For taking this view we find support from a decision of Bombay High Court in R.K. Industries and Others v. Union of India and Another (which was specifically a case relating to electric fans), the Madras High Court decision in P.M. Abdul Latif v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others -1983 E.C.R. 55D (Madras) and the Tribunal s decision in M/s. Lucas Indian Service Ltd., Madras v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 415 (Tribunal). As to Collector s reliance on the agreement between the appellants and the job workers, to us it appears to be a standard commercial agreement and, besides, there was no allegation about this agreement in the show cause notice. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the present app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
