9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. British Motor Car Company and its subsidiaries named above submitted one annual report for the Units disclosing profit and loss accounts. The firms have common distributors, common directors and common balance sheet, and the Units belong to the same manufacturer i.e. M/s. British Motor Car Company. 3. The short facts leading to this petition are as under. 4. A show cause notice under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (for short the Act) was issued to the petitioners by the Assistant Collector Central Excise Division II Ghaziabad calling upon them to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 99,960.00 on the total value of goods cleared during the 1979-80 should not be recovered from them under Rule 9(2) of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiries made it was found that M/s. Naharwar Engineering Works and M/s. Ved Engineering Works, both manufacture automobile parts i.e. `Joint Crosses' and `Valve-guides' falling under Tariff Item No. 68, and during the financial year 1978-79 they cleared the excisable goods worth Rs. 24,20,265.36 for home consumption form both the Units at Sahibabad and Jallundhar, For these reasons according to the respondents, the petitioners are liable to pay duty and penalty referred to above. 7. Refuting the claim as set out by the respondents, the petitioners emerged with the plea that as they got their classification list approved by the Department and officers, there was no question of surreptitious removal of goods from any place as such duty can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed one annual report disclosing profit and loss accounts, both the units have common distributors, common Directors and common balance sheet. On this basis the finding arrived at by the authorities below is that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 71 of 1973 as amended, and that petitioners deliberately misled the department by suppressing this fact and therefore, the limitation of 5 years as provided under Section 11A of the Act was applicable in their case. Under Section 11A of the Act the limitation provided in normal course is six months but where by mis-representation or suppression of facts excise duty has not been paid or short paid, has not been levied or has been short levied or erroneo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at vide para 41 of the petition it has been stated that petitioners have no alternative remedy except to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction. In view of the provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act this statement does not appear to be correct. However, instead of taking technical view of the matter we are deciding this petition on merit. 13. For petitioners, learned counsel cited catena of decisions but in view of discussions made above, in our considered opinion, the decisions cited have no application to the facts of instant case and therefore, reproduction of the same will be of no avail. 14. In view of the premises aforesaid we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned in this petition did not call for any interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
