COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. PAWAN ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act"), is directed against final order, dated 23rd January, 2003, in Appeal No. E/1459/02-B (, : 2003 (160) ELT 497 (Tribunal)), passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") (as it then existed). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the Assessee's appeal, holding that in the declarations filed by the Assessee under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, there was no suppression of facts relating to the process of manufacture, and therefore, the extended period of limitation beyond six months from the date of issue of show cause notice, was not available to the revenue. Notice of motion in the appeal was confined to the question of limitation. Since the genesis of the controversy lies on the contents of the said declarations, vide order, dated 9th November, 2011, Learned Counsel for the revenue was directed to produce the original record containing the declarations in question.

(2.) Pursuant to the said order, a file bearing C. No. V(72)15/T.I./49/98, containing photocopies of form of declarations, filed by the Assessee with their covering letter, dated 5th April, 1994, has been produced before us. Having perused the declarations, for the periods ending 31st March, 1994 to 31st December, 1998, we are convinced that the finding referred by the Tribunal, namely, that the process of manufacture had been disclosed in the declarations cannot be faulted.

(3.) Against paragraph 9 of the said declarations, the process of manufacture has been stated as "Billet/Steel-Cutting-Heating-Rolling-Cutting-Hole". Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in reversing the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the process of manufacture had not been disclosed in the declarations. In view of the factual position, as emerging from the record placed before us, the aforesaid finding of facts, recorded by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal, being bereft of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.