9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of duty has been upheld on merits following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in their own case reported in 2005 (180) E.L.T. 307 (S.C.). Modvat credit was allowed and it was held that the demand for the period 1-10-1994 to 31-3-1995 is within the normal period. It was further held that for the period from 1-4-1990 to 3-4-1994, the extended period was rightly invoked by the Commissioner. 2. The Tribunal's aforesaid Order dated 23-5-2008 with regard to the period 1-4-1990 to 3-4-1994 is based on the following findings: (i) that the permission sought by the applicants through letter dated 6-6-1988 and the clarification from Assistant Collector dated 12-8-1988 clarifying that no permission is required under Rule 56B for movement of wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d were drawn for testing and that, test reports by Chemical Examiner clarify that the pieces as irregular shapes and sizes and specifying its composition. Subsequent test reports further indicated that the chemical nature of crayon (crayplas) stick and crayplas (crayon) square block are almost identical. This further substantiates; (v) that there existed a dispute as to the dutiability of in-process material (i.e. natural graphite and natural clay), of pencil leads which Department also had claimed to be manufactured product and the Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original No. V-Adj (Ch. 38) 15-208/91, dated 30-3-1992 had held that the said product as not excisable which subsequently has been upheld by Tribunal vide Final Order No. 997/98-D, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared therein. Classification List for crayplas compound in flat and square lump form was filed only on 4-4-1994. The dispute with regard to the dutiability of in-process material (i.e., natural graphite and natural clay) of pencil leads has nothing to do with regard to the classification and dutiability of crayplas compound, which is a finished product. We have already held that we have carefully considered the above case laws cited by the applicants but the ratio of these case laws is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The extended period is invokable in this case, as the applicants never brought to the notice of the Department about the manufacture of crayplas compound and never corresponded to obtain any clarification from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the classification list for crayonplas compound was filed on 4-4-1994 and, therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked thereafter. Hence, the demand for the period 4-4-1994 to 30-9-1994 is barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued on 31-3-1995. In this regard, the Revenue has contended as under: "As per the then existing Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in cases where there is no fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any other provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of duty, then the notice under this Section has to be served within a period of six months from the relevant date. The 'relevant date' as defined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
