R.K. ISPAT UDYOG Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a duty demand of Rs. 1,67 lakh and penalty of Rs. 40,000 against the first appellant who is the manufacturer of the goods in question. The second appellant was an employee of the first appellant.

(2.) The duty demand has been confirmed by taking resort to the extended period available under proviso to Section 11A to the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the ground that the appellant had collected additional amounts from the buyers, but such realizations were not disclosed to the Central Excise authorities.

(3.) The appellant is not disputing the fact of collection of additional amount or not disclosing that fact to the Central Excise authorities. In these circumstances, proviso to Section 11A is clearly attracted. The appellants' defence is that extended period was not invocable in the present case, because Central Excise authorities had visited the appellant's factory in October 1996 (the duty demand is for the period 1995 -96) and they had become aware of the short levy and they could have issued duty demand within the normal period from October 1996. It is also pointed out that with regard to part of the demand relating to seized goods, another show cause notice had been issued within the normal period and proceedings concluded. The learned Consultant appearing for the appellant emphasized that in these facts, where revenue authorities became aware of short levy in 1996 itself, they were not justified in issuing a show cause notice on 25.1.2000 by taking resort to the extended period. He also emphasized that in the first show cause notice relating to seized goods, no suppression of facts was alleged or proviso to Section 11A invoked. The learned Counsel has relied on the following decisions of this Tribunal in his support: