1994 (9) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. M- 252/8D. 54/87, dated 22-4-1987 confirming the order-in-original Ad/24/86, dated 9/13-1-1987 confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 11,692.53 on the ground that the appellants had clandestinely removed the manufactured goods without payment of appropriate duty. 2. The factory premises of the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....same. It was however held that the notice was served within six months from the date of ascertaining that the clandestine removal had taken place. The adjudicating authority therefore confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. In the appeal before Collector (A) the demand was confirmed but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 250/- only. 3. Shri Willingdon Christian, the ld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stand vitiated on this ground alone. 4. Shri Harnek Singh, the ld. JDR has however supported the order and has submitted that it cannot be said that clandestine removal had taken place beyond the six months from 16-7-1986. It was detected on 5-2-1986 and the perriod of limitation of six months should run from that date. He also submits that though the allegation of clandestine removal and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....86. No allegation is made in the SCN to the effect that the clandestine removal was during the aforesaid period. When the SCN itself is silent over the issue, it also cannot be presumed that such removal must have taken place within a period of six months. It is now not open to the deptt. to take advantage of the lacuna left out so as to warrant further investigation in the matter and the benefit ....