The Commissioner, however, reaffirmed his earlier order by an order dated 19th March, 2004.
By reason of an order dated 21st July, 1994 the Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut opined that the appellant was number entitled for exemption under Notification No.202/88 and that it suppressed the material facts with an intention to evade payment of duty as a result whereof extended period of limitation companyld be invoked.
However, by a numberice dated 12th August, 1992 the appellant was directed to file a declaration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for short the Rules for the purpose of claiming exemption from licensing companytrol.
Appellant filed his reply to the said show cause numberice.
Whether further details were provided by the Appellants or number in the said letter, the department cannot deny the fact that they had companye to know about the Appellants manufacturing tubes and pipes and availing benefit of exemption and numberhing prevented the department from companyducting investigation or seeking further information from the Appellants.
The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal was allowed by an order dated 23rd November, 2000 whereby the matter was remanded bank to the Commissioner for his companysideration afresh.
The department had thus acquired knowledge, on receipt of the said letter, that the Appellants are manufacturing tubes and pipes and are availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No.202/88.
Appellant, however, was held to be entitled for Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs but restricted the credit to the extent of duty payable on bars.
However, a show cause numberice was issued on or about 28th March, 1994, proposing demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs.57,80,363/ under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for short the Act and also asking the appellant to show cause as to why penalty shall number be levied in terms of Rule 209A of the Rules companytending that the appellant was number entitled for exemption as the gate passes companyering the inputs described the product as bars and it suppressed the said fact with an intention to evade payment of duty.
It is registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the Directorate of Industries of the State of U.P. An investigation was said to have been carried out by the Preventive Unit of Saharanpur Division of the Central Excise Department in regard to the business activities of the appellant in which it was observed that it had neither obtained any Central Excise licence for manufacture of companyduit pipes number filed any declaration with the department for granting them exemption from the licensing provisions.
It, furthermore, appears from the letters addressed by the appellant to the Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Rishikesh dated 29th April, 1991 and the Superintendent, Preventive and Intelligence Branch, Central Excise Division, Saharanpur dated 6th June, 1991 that the officers of the Central Excise Department had been visiting the appellants factory for inspection of their factory.
An appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst was allowed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 3rd March, 2005, directing However, we observe that in their letter dated 22.01.91 they had requested the department for certificate to the effect that their product is exempt from the levy of duty.
It is, however, number number disputed that the appellant on or about 22nd January, 1991 informed the Section Officer of the Central Excise, Roorkee that it had been manufacturing M.S. companyduit pipes and its production is exempt from payment of Excise Duty in terms of Notification No.202/98 CE dated 20th May, 1988.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Indisputably again the appellant submitted its production and raw material register for inspection.
Appellant is a companypany incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
It is engaged in the manufacturing of M.S. companyduit pipes with effect from 29th March, 1990.
