HARIKRIPA POLYMERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellant is challenging the Order -in -original No. 11/2005 dated 31.3.2005 confirming demands and imposing penalties, as the appellant had not included the value of clearances made on job work basis.

(2.) THE learned Counsel pleaded time bar on the ground that the show cause notice had been issued on 2.1.2004 for the period 2.6.1998 to 31.3.2002. It is his submission that the declaration dated 1.6.98 had disclosed the value of clearances of job work. However, on a query from the Bench as to whether the appellant had made declarations for subsequent periods and shown the value of clearances of job work done by them, the learned Counsel fairly conceded that they had not shown such details in the subsequent declaration as required in law. He contends that the Range Officer had advised them that they need not disclose these particulars. On further query as to whether the appellant had cross -examined the concerned officer, who had given them the said advice, the learned Counsel submits that the concerned officer was cross examined and he has denied the fact that he had given any such advice. The learned Counsel pleaded that appellants held a bonafide belief that they were not required to furnish details of job work done in the declaration and hence, the larger period is not invokable. He further contended that they have not been given an opportunity to make their submissions during the personal hearing after recording of all the evidence, hence, there is violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that their claim of grant of deductions by holding clearances to be as cum -duty and the claim of modvat has not been considered. He further submits that the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for imposing penalty under Section 11AC of CE Act. He prayed for remand of the matter, so that they can contest the matter afresh.

(3.) THE learned JCDR took us through the findings recorded by the Commissioner on all the aspects of the matter. He submits that for the period 1998, their clearances were below the exempted limit and their declaration disclosing the clearances made on job work basis is of no consequence. However, they had admitted that they had not disclosed the value of clearances made on job work basis in the subsequent clearances and hence, there was a clear suppression of facts and confirmation of duty for larger period is justified. He submits that the assessee is not eligible for benefit of modvat, as they had not produced concerned duty paying documents. Countering the arguments, the learned Counsel submits that all the documents had been produced and the same has not been considered.