Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 26 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(132)ELT374(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. In the impugned order the Additional Collector has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant, on biries manufactured by it. The Additional Collector found that the appellant had manufactured and cleared biries without paying the duty on it.
2. I have heard both sides.
3. Notice issued to the appellant was based on the fact that there was a failure to account for about 45866 kg. of tobacco which it issued to the contractor who rolled the biries. The notice was issued in March, 1989. The show cause notice was issued on 6-1-1984 for clearances between 1-1-1982 and 30-6-1983. It in effect invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section HA of the Act alleging suppression of production.
4. The Tribunal, in LML Limited v. C.C.E. -1991 (51) E.L.T. 434 (Tribunal) has held that in a case where the factory is under the physical control of the officers of the Department, extended period cannot be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts relating to manufacture and clearance. This is so for the reason that virtually every step of the manufacture and clearance is subject to the control by the officers of the department, who are required to carry out checks of such clearance to the prescribed extent. In that situation, therefore, unless collusion between the officers and the appellant were alleged the extended period will not be available. No such collusion is alleged. The notice issued to the appellant is therefore barred by limitation.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.