COMMERCIAL STEEL ENGG. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Forged Steel Grinding Media Ball". The present duty demand of over Rs. 3.5 lakhs is in regard to manufacture during period 1.4.87 to 29.2.88. The show cause notice for recovery of this amount was Issued on 28.1.92 by resorting to proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The extended period contemplated in that proviso is attracted only to cases in volving fraud collusion, suppression of facts with in tent to evade payment of duty etc.

(2.) We have perused the records and have heard both the sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the facts and circumstances of this case did not permit of a demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The learned Counsel pointed out that the appellant is a unit engaged in the manufacture of the said grinding media for several years and the manufacturing activities carried out by the appellant were in the knowledge of the Central Excise authorities. He pointed out that previously a show cause notice dated 15.7.87 had been issued and Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna had passed an order dated 14.9.90. When that order was taken up in appeal, the Tribunal passed an order of remand and the Commissioner had held in the remand proceedings (Order No. 25) that the demand is time barred for the period beyond the normal period of six months it is the learned Counsel's submission that the findings of the Commissioner in that order relating to the demand for the previous period equally applied to period covered by the present appeal and the Commissioner was in error in taking a contrary view in the present Impugned order. The learned Counsel pointed out that distinction between the two periods made in the Commissioner's order is that the period covered in the present proceedings came under new tariff. The Commissioner has held as under:

(3.) The learned Counsel pointed out that what is material is not whether a new tariff had come in to existence but whether the facts of the case were suppressed with in tent to evade payment of duty. Learned Counsel contended that the introduction of new tariff is relevant for the purpose of classification of the goods and not to the question as to whether any suppression of facts was in volved. The Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner's finding in Order No. 25 that there is no act of misdeclaration or non -declaration or suppression of facts or misrepresentation or fraud equally applied to the period in volved in the present proceedings.