TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (12) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C is the demand of duty of Rs. 2,04,782.19 for 1980-81. 4. According to the Department, the appellants are manufacturer of Graphite Crucibles and Graphite powder. The clearances of their manufacturing product during the year 1979-80, according to the Department, was more than the value of Rs. 30 lacs and as such, they were called upon to pay duty under two different show cause notices, dated 19.1.82 and 14.7.1982 respectively. 5. Appellants among other things contended in their replies to the show cause notices that no duty is demandable in respect of Graphite crucible and Graphite powder by reason of Exemption Notification. They also urged that the demands are barred by time. Initially the Assistant Collector who held adjudication reject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assistant Collector. 9. During the hearing of these appeals, Shri D.N. Kohli contended that the Collector (Appeals) wrongly construed the scope of the remand. He submitted that before the remand, one of the contention taken before the Collector (Appeals) was that in the show cause notices issued, there was no allegation of mis-representation or wilful suppression of facts. The show cause notice was issued only on the basis of the audit objections and, therefore, any demand for exceeding six months preceding the date of show cause notice is barred by limitation. This contention was accepted by the Collector (Appeals) and in this connection, we refer to the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) wherein a reference is made as to the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assistant Collector ought to have rejected the demands. This contention was accepted by the Collector (Appeals). The relevant observations of the Collector (Appeals) in his order, dated 5.8.1983 reads as under :- "With regard to the argument of Mr. Banerjee that to invoke the proviso to Sec. 11A which extends the time limit for raising demand from 6 months to 5 years the same had to be mentioned in the show-cause notice and the nature of suppression of information has to be indicated, it is enough to say that since the show cause notice, dated 14.7.82, it is seen that the original show cause notice, dated 19.1.82 was issued under Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which had been deleted by that time. But a corrigendum was is....