1994 (9) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d unit. Both the units manufactured finished products. But the wood frames, shutters etc. manufactured in the Wood Working Unit were not sold. They were fixed in the buildings constructed by the Board. Licence under the Act was obtained for the concrete unit as the finished products manufactured in this unit were sold to outsiders. But no licence was obtained for the Wood Unit as the appellant was advised that no licence was needed for the wood unit. The officers of Central Excise Department visited the premises on 11th May, 1984. On 29th June 1984, notice to show cause under Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was issued. In reply one of the objections, amongst others, raised was that there was no suppression of facts nor there was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder, with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words" Central Excise Officer", the words "Collector of Central Excise" and for the words "six months", the words "five years" were substituted." A bare reading of the proviso indicates that it is in nature of an exception to the principal clause. Therefore, its exercise is hedged on one hand with existence of such situatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dy. It had taken out licence for concrete as it was being sold to outsiders. No licence was taken out for wood products as according to it, it was advised so by the Excise Department itself. It would have been better if the appellant would have examined the officer who was advised not to take licence. But mere non-examination of officer could not give rise to an inference that the appellant was intentionally evading payment of duty. When the appellant was found not to have been making any profit and it had taken out licence for concrete unit then in absence of any other material to prove any deliberate act of the appellant the presumption of reasonable doubt of the appellant cannot be said to have been successfully rebutted. The finding of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X