9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bleached fabrics, part of which was used for manufacture of interlining cotton fabrics. Both were leviable to duties of Excise as well as to Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. For the bleached fabrics so used, the assessees had, in their declaration under Rule 173B claimed benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95. In the Show cause notice dated 23-7-99, it was alleged that during the period August, 1996 to February, 1998, the assessees had evaded payment of additional duties of excise leviable on the bleached fabrics inasmuch as the mentioned notification exempted such goods only from the payment of basic duties of excise and not from the payment of additional duties of excise. The extended per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Parikh, Advocate for the appellants and Shri P.K. Agarwal for the respondent. 6.At the time of hearing, the same arguments as were made before the Commissioner were advanced before us and citation was made of the Tribunal's orders and also by the Supreme Court. 7.We have seen the declarations filed by the assessee and also the flow chart which shows bleaching as the process in the manufacture of powder coated fabrics which are interlining fabrics. We have also seen the classification declarations filed from time to time including those filed during the period in dispute. Some of the declarations are computer generated in which the claim for exemption under Notfn. No. 67/95 is made by hand. On the other hand, the declarations made on 1-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty as well as without payment of duty. Shri Deven Parekh also refers us to an earlier show cause notice dated 29-9-98 covering a later period in which from page 2 thereof it is shown that RT 12 returns were being filed. If it is so, it could not be stated that the department was not in a position to verify the fact that the additional duties were not paid. On the basis of the analysis, we find substance in the assessee's claim that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. 9.Shri Deven Parekh also shows us the earlier cited show case notice dated 29-9-98 which covers the period March, 1998 to May, 1998. The show cause notice leading to the present dispute is dated 22-7-99 and covers the period August, 1996 to February, 98. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee who was the claimant. We find that from the facts of the case narrated in the said judgment, the ratio of the same does not apply to the facts of the case. The Supreme Court were dealing with the situation where the assessee had charged fees from the buyers and had not made debit entries in the PLA nor had they issued a gate pass covering the goods.
13.Thus on all counts of limitation, we find for the assessee company and hold that the demands confirmed are hit by limitation. Therefore, the orders of penalties also do not sustain either on the assessee company or on the officers and employees thereof. Consequently, all the 8 appeals are allowed with consequential benefit, if any, according to law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
