JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two appeals, bearing Nos. E/1157/94 -C and E/502/94 -C

(2.) APPEAL No. E/1157/94 -C has been filed against the Order -in -Original dated 25 -2 -1994 passed by the Collector in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 3 -5 -1993 relating to the period April, 1990 to September, 1991 vide he raised demand of Rs. 12,05,187/ - as excise duty on the crushed stone and imposed personal penalty of Rs.1,50,000/ - on the appellants. The other appeal No. E/502/94 -C has been filed against the order dated 19 -11 -1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals) upholding the Order -in -Original dated 14 -6 -1993 of Assistant Collector who raised duty demand of Rs. 17,565/ -for the period October, 1991 to January, 1992 from the appellants and imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/ -.

(3.) THE appellants are engaged in the manufacture of crushed stones falling under sub -heading 2505 of the Schedule appended to the Central Excise Tariff Act and fabrication of steel shuttering plates, falling under sub -heading 7308.90 of the said Schedule, for the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited. They and the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, were served with two show cause notices one dated 3 -5 -1993 for the period April, 1990 to September, 1991 and the other for the period October, 1991 to January, 1992, vide which they were called upon to show cause as to why the Central Excise duty be not demanded and recovered from them for the periods mentioned therein under Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with Section 11 -A of the Act by invoking the extended period of limitation as provided under the proviso to mat Section, for having suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of the Revenue and also not obtained the Central Excise Licence and observed other statutory formalities, as required under the Central Excise Law. They were further asked to show cause as to why penal action against them under Rules 9(2), 173 -Q and 209 of the Rules be not taken. Similarly, the National Hydroelectric Corporation Ltd. was called upon to show cause as to why penal action be not taken against them under Rules 9(2), 73 -Q and 209 of the Central Excise Rules.