9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturing Glued Insulated Rail Joints and Rail Trolley/Diplorry/Complete Bush Trolley for Indian Railways; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 116/2001, dated 17-9-2001 demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,82,866 for the period from 1994-95 to 1997-98 besides imposing penalty of Rs. 13,17,589 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 7 lakh under Rules 9(2), 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order, however, has held that the extended period could not be invoked and the Demand was hit by limitation as the respondents had ample grounds to hold bona fidely that the goods were not excisable based upon the purchase Order give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invocable. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of M/s. Fortune Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, 2001 (138) E.L.T. 556 (T) = 2001 (77) ECC 410 (T) wherein it has been held that mistake cannot be committed consecutively on five occasions and the long time lag and despatch of goods part by part consecutively on five occasions belie their claim of bona fide mistake. The learned SDR, therefore, contended that similarly in the present matter excisable goods were manufactured and removed over a period of 3 financial years without payment of Central Excise duty and without informing the Department about manufacture and removal of goods. 3. On the other hand, Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned that while computing the demand of duty, the price should be treated as cum-duty price in terms of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T-LB) = (32) RLT 1 (CEGAT). 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the respondents that during the relevant period they had neither informed the Central Excise Department about manufacture of the goods nor even consulted them about the excisability of their product. It is the duty of every person manufacturing excisable goods to seek registration under Excise Law and observe the Central Excise formalities and remove the goods on payment of duty. They have claimed that they held the bona fide b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured the product in question and removed the same without any intimation to the Department which clearly goes to show that their action was with intent to evade payment of duty. There cannot be any bona fide belief on the part of the appellant in this regard. In these circumstances the contention of the appellant that the removal of the goods without payment of duty was not with intent to evade payment of duty cannot be accepted. Therefore, the duty demanded by invoking the longer period of limitation is in accordance with law." 5. In the present matter also the respondents had manufactured and removed the goods without any intimation to the Department and thus suppressed the fact with intent to evade payment of duty. The extende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
