9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the registration that the waste alkaline water were also generated during he course of manufacture of the final product, which cannot be stored because of pollution control norms and are disposed of as per mandates of the statute framed by the Government. Since the appellant in very categorical terms has intimated the Department regarding generation of the waste material and disposal of the same from the factory premises, the allegations levelled in the show cause notice and the duty demand confirmed in the adjudication order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not proper and justified. It is an admitted fact on record that the activities of the respondent were known to the Department in the month of September, 2004 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999 (108) ELT 611 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Central Excise Ghaziabad vs. Rathi Steel and Power Ltd. reported in 2015 (321) ELT 200 (All.) and 4. Alaska Tyres (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2002 (145) ELT 329 (Tri.-Del.) 4. Per contra, Shri Alok Yadav, the ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the fact of generation of unwanted material, namely, product i.e. waste alkaline water during the course of manufacture of Zirconium Carbonate and Zirconium Oxide was known to the Department way-back in 1993 through filing of the classification list by the respondent and also through the intimation letter dated 18.02.2003 18.09.2004, addressed by the respondent to the Jurisdictional Rang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued within one year from the relevant date, seeking recovery of the duty amount. The proviso appended to Section 11A (1) specifies that where the duty of excise has not been levied or paid by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act with intent to evade payment of duty, instead of the period of one year, the show cause notice can be issued by invoking the extended period of limitation of 5 years. 8. For resolving the present dispute, the letter dated 18.02.2003 addressed by the respondent to the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent is very crucial, which is extracted below:- Dated 18.2.2003 The Superintendent Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not proper and justified. 10. I find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals (supra) have held that when the facts are known to the Department, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, justifying confirmation of the duty demand. The judgments/decisions cited by the ld. D.R. for Revenue are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, in asmuch as, the issues decided in those cases relate to imposition of mandatory penalty under section 11AC of the Act and non-maintenance of statutory records with intent to evade payment of duty; whereas, contrary is the situation in the present case, where the issue confines to the time limit, within which the SCN has to be issued, whether it should be w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
