9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of Notification No. 152/77 dated 18-6-1977 as amended by Notification No. 235/77 dated 15-7-1977. A show cause notice dated 2nd April, 1979 was issued and as a result of the adjudicating proceedings the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, held that there was contravention of Rules 9(1), 173F, 173G read with 173Q and ordered that excise duty at the appropriate rate be paid on the said quantity of iron bars under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 10 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-under Rule 173Q. As per the Collector, there was willful mis-statement and suppression of fact, the fact of the date prior to which the raw-material i.e. the steel ingots were cleared and on that basis he held that the demand of duty, as stated in the show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s adequate justification on the part of the Board in setting aside the penalty." 5. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC) wherein it has been held that extended period of five years is inapplicable for mere failure or negligence to pay duty when there was scope for doubt that the goods were not dutiable unless there is evidence that the manufacturer knew that the goods were liable to duty and he due to fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts in contravention of any provision of the Act and the Rules, cleared the goods without payment of duty, the extended period of five years limitation could be invoked. 6. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application of Rule 9(2). The Gujarat High Court in Surgichem, by its partner Natverlal P. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, 1980 CENCUS 1D, had the occasion to deal with almost a similar case and in Paragraph 12 of the case it was held :- "If the petitioner having posted the departmental authorities with all the necessary facts as regards type of goods manufactured by it had been clearing them from time to time under the Self Removal Procedure, after filing necessary classification lists with the departmental authorities and if the departmental authorities failed to raise proper demands for the levy of excise in these two disputed items, it cannot be said that the removal by the petitioner of these goods was in any clandestine manner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
