VIJAY TANKS & VESSELS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is manufacturer of iron and steel drums and containers. The said manufacture is on job work basis for M/s. IOC Ltd. The present appeal relates to the demand for duty short -levied on account of alleged undervaluation of the containers so manufactured and supplied to IOC Ltd. The demand is for the period April 1996 to January 2001 and Show -cause Notice was issued on 15.4.2001.

(2.) THE contention of the appellant is that the demand has been raised beyond the period of limitation provided in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. It has been submitted that the normal period provided under Section 11A is only six months and the extended period of five years is available only in exceptional circumstances involving fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or misstatement of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant's submission is that in the present case the full facts covering the transaction between the parties were known to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers and they had issued several Show -cause Notices within the normal period. It is submitted that, in such a situation, where facts were known to jurisdictional authorities and those authorities had initiated action again to recover the alleged short -levies, there was no justification in the Commissioner to invoke the extended period as provided in the proviso to Section 11A and demand duty for the period of 5 years. During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel for the appellant look us through the relevant records and pointed out that the appellant had specifically brought to the notice of the Commissioner in their reply to the Show -cause Notice that Show -cause Notices issued by lower authorities on the subject, were pending decision before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. According to the learned Counsel, in the above circumstances, the impugned order is required to be quashed on the ground of limitation alone. He also submitted that since earlier show -cause notice issued by the jurisdictional authorities remained superseded by the subsequent notice for the extended period issued by the Commissioner, the proceedings could not be taken under those Show -cause Notices also.

(3.) LEARNED SDR has submitted that there was no ground for treating the Show -cause Notices which were issued during the normal period as having lapsed. He also pointed out that such a course would lead to loss to revenue, since the appellant's Cost Accountant himself admitted the short -levy on account of improper calculation of assessable value.