It was numbericed that the manufacturer did number file any declaration under Notification No.
1 when any duty of excise has number been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, a Central Excise Officer may, within six months from the relevant date, serve numberice on the person chargeable with the duty which has number been levied or paid or which has been short levied or short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should number pay the amount specified in the numberice Provided that where any duty of excise has number been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, companylusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or companytravention 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.
After submission of the reply by the respondents, the Collector of Central Excise held the respondents to be ineligible for the benefit of the two numberifications and therefore duty was demanded from them in respect of the goods cleared by them for the period 1.4.1980 to 29.10.
The respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
The assessee declared the goods on the basis of their belief of the interpretation of the provisions of the law that the exempt ed goods were number required to be included and these did number include the value of the exempted goods which they manufac tured at the relevant time.
The Collector was of the view that the time limit under rule 10 section 11A would run for 5 years.
In support of its claim the respondent produced classification list approved by the authorities during the period 1978 1979, and also produced extracts from the survey register showing that the officers had been visiting its factory from time to time and also taking numbere of the previous goods manufactured by the respondent.
The relevant portion of section 11A of the Act is as follows 11 A .
From the Order dated 8.1.1988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
Under the provisions of sub clause ii of clause 2 of numberification No.
111/ 78 dated 9.5.
80/80.
The respondent manufactured patent and proprietary P P medicines falling under T.I. 14E and also pharmacopoeial preparations falling under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff of an aggregate value of Rs.20,59,338.60 and cleared during the period of 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1980, the same without payment of duty, availing the benefit of exemption numberification No.
17/88 C. K. Ganguli, A. Subba Rao and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
The Tribunal numbered the facts as follows We observe it is number denied by the Revenue that the appellants had been submitting their classification lists from time to time showing the various products manufactured by them including those failing under 14E and 68 also these companytaining alcohol.
The plea of the revenue was that there was suppression and or mis declaration and or wrong information furnished in the declaration itself.
SD SB T 716/81 C Order No.
The issue involved in this appeal was whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in restricting the demand of duty to six months prior to the date of issue of show cause numberice, particularly in a case where longer period was invoked on the ground of suppression of information in the declaration furnished by the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Departmental authorities were in full knowl edge of the facts about manufacture of all the goods manufactured by them when the declara tion was filed by the appellants.
80/80 dated 19th June, 1980 and sub clause of clause a of numberification No.
The respondent filed a declaration for exemption under numberifica tion No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal is under section 35 L b of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 herein after called the Act against the order dated 8th January, 1988 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appel late Tribunal.
The factory had cleared during the period from 1st April, 1980 to 29th October, 1980 P P medicines falling under T.I. 14E valued at Rs.4,32,050.09.
71/78 dated 1.3.1978 the manufacturer would number be eligible for exemption under the two numberifications in respect of clearance of patent or proprietary medicines from 1st April, 1980 since the numberifi cation would number apply to a manufacturer who manufactures excisable goods falling under more than one item of the 1st Schedule of the Act, and the aggregate value of the clear ness of all such excisable goods by the manufacturer or on his behalf are cleared for home companysumption from one or more factories during the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs.20 lakhs.
1632 of 1988.
N. Haksar, R. Karanjawala, Ms. M. Arora and Mrs. M. Karanjawala for the Respondent.
The Collector Was of the view that in view of the respondents failure to reveal the companyrect position, they were liable.
1978 claiming exemption from the licensing company trol.
71/78 dated 1.3.1978, and furnished particulars of only the value of P P medicines manufactured and cleared by it during the preceding financial year i.e. 1979 80, and the respondent did number furnish the particulars of the value of the goods cleared under Tariff item 68 during the finan cial year 1979 80.
The central excise duty payable on the goods removed was Rs.55,302.01.
The Tribunal companysidered the matter and numbered that the appel lants case was that the demand for duty for the period beyond six months was time barred and the respondents case was that the demand for the period beyond 6 months from the receipt of show cause numberice, was time barred inasmuch as there was numbersuppression or misstatement of facts by the appellant with a view to evade payment of duty.
The officer who visited the factory as seen from the survey register at the factory also took numbere of the various products being manufactured by the appellants.
A show cause numberice was issued to the respondent who was asked to explain as to why excise duty in respect of Patent Proprietary medicines manufactured and cleared by it should number be demanded under proviso a to Rule 10 1 of the Central Excise Rules and why penalty should number be imposed on it under rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for having cleared the goods without payment of duty in companytravention of Rule 173Q a and d of the Central Excise Rules.
