ASIAN FOUNDATION Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUING for the appellant Shri L.P. Dhir, Id. advocate submitted that apart from the merits of the case the demand is barred by time under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. In the Show Cause Notice though there was allegation of suppression but in the absence of specific mention of proviso to Section 11A the demand is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, the party has taken a specific plea with reference to the Show Cause Notice that demand was barred by time in the absence of suppression and there was no justification to raise the demand by invoking lager period. This important plea has not been dealt with in the order.

(2.) ON the other hand, Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR referred to the findings of the Collector in the impugned order particularly para 18 and 23 of the order and relevant portion is as under: In the instant case M/s Afcons have not challenged the excisability of the goods in question under the various headings/sub -headings of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. I therefore, hold that M/s Afcons have manufactured the goods mentioned in the Annexure to the show cause notice without obtaining a Central Excise licence and without following the prescribed procedures and thereby contravened various provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder. The duty demanded in the show cause notice is, therefore, rightly revoverable from them. ... ... In so far as the liability of M/s Afcon, M/s Krishna and M/s Kundalia to penalties under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is concerned, I find that none of them have ever intimated to the proper officer of Central Excise of jurisdiction about the manufacture of excisable goods by them net filed any declaration nor applied for an obtained Central Excise licence as required under the law. They have also failed to follow the procedures prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the excisable goods manufactured by them. They have therefore, contravened various provisions of The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty. I, therefore, hold that they are liable to penalties under Rule 173(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(3.) HE submits that as can be seen from the impugned order the Collector has given findings that the appellants manufactured goods without following the prescribed procedure and thereby contravened the various provisions in the Central Excise Act. He said that these findings cover the issue even with reference to the time bar. Accordingly, invoking larger period under Section 11Aof the Act was justified.