CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a manufacturer of electrical transformers which are liable to central excise duty. On 6th November 1993, the appellant dispatched one transformer after payment of duty. It got damaged when the truck carrying it met with an accident. The transformer was, therefore, brought back and its return intimated to the Central Excise authorities under a D -3 return. Later on, it was restored to good condition and cleared on 31.3.94 without the paying of any central excise duty. That clearance was also included in the monthly return of clearance of goods from the factory.

(2.) THE appellant's unit was subsequently audited by Central Excise authorities. On 31.3.99, a Show -cause Notice was issued alleging that the appellant mis -declared the clearance of March 1994 as repaired transformer; but actually it was a case of clearance of a manufactured transformer without payment of duty. The notice raised a duty demand of about Rs. 1.6 lakhs and also proposed imposition of penalty. The Notice also alleged that the duty evasion was by suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, and for that reason, the notice issued beyond the normal period of one year was sustainable in terms of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

(3.) THE appellant denied the charges by contending that what had been undertaken was only repair of transformer by replacement of some parts and the same cannot be treated as the manufacture of a new transformer. It was also pointed out that the repaired transpformer retained the same serial number (M -1120) of the originally cleared transformer. The appellant also contended that there was no suppression of any fact and extended period was not attracted.