TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (11) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturing `Artificial or Synthetic Resin' without obtaining C.E. Licence and without observing the C.E. formalities and without paying the C.E. Duty as required under Tariff Item 15A of the old Tariff during the period 1981 to 1985-86 (upto Nov.' 85) for the said goods cleared during the period April '81 to Nov. '85. Hence a show cause notice dated 25-11-1986 was issued to them. 3. By their reply dated 29-6-1987, submitted that they wrote a letter to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Poddar Court on 2-2-1980 enquiring about their obligations under C.E. regulations as manufacturer of chemicals and auxiliaries and also tried to ascertain as to whether the product would a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factory was visited by the Supdt. and stocks [were checked] namely and samples drawn from two of their products lying in [stock] [namely] `Acrinol G and Acrinol TPN' for test and no samples were drawn from the other product. On 3-9-1985, the Supdt. of the Central Excise, Range-6, I Division also visited their factory and drew further samples. The reports of the samples drawn by Supdt. (Prev.) with that of the samples drawn by Supdt. I Divn. differed in as much as the Chemical Examiner observed that the samples drawn by the Supdt. (Prev.) are "Aqueous emulsion of Styrenated Acrylic Co-Polymer Synthetic Resin in the form of free flowing liquid", whereas, the other samples drawn by Supdt. I were found to be "Aqueous emulsion essentially com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given the benefit on time bar for the period upto Nov. '81 as the show cause notice was served on 2-12-1986 and hence held that they are liable for duty amounting to Rs. 1,14,584.88 (Basic) and Rs. 5,729.24 (Special) during 1981-82 after deducting the time-barred portion. On the whole, he has confirmed the duty of Rs. 3,74,647.04 and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Somesh Arora, ld. JDR for the Revenude Ld. Advocate pointed out that the show cause notice dated 25-11-1986 covered for the period Dec. to Nov' 85. He pointed out to the various correspondence in this regard and submitted that the appellants have taken the licence under T.I. 68 on 23-7-1985.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the time bar and has held the demands for the period upto Nov' 81 as time bar. However, we notice that the report of the Chemical Examiner has been obtained on 17-10-1985 and the department has taken their own time to issue the show cause notice on 25-11-1986. In this case, it cannot be said that there is a misdeclaration or suppression as can be seen from the correspondence and the departmental officials themselves visiting the factory and checking the records. In view of these declarations and correspondence and also the officers' visit to the factory, it cannot be said that there has been suppression and mis-declaration of the goods. As the show cause notice has been issued after 11 months of the receipt of the Chemical Examiner reports ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of various types of Acrenols (Annexure 2) under the heading `Details of formulation of chemical products' that though called by the commercial name Acrenol they are actually permutation combination of various types of chemicals. Therefore physical and chemical reactions involved in each case and the properties of the final product are bound to be different. It is therefore clear that the result of analysis of the sample of only two of them cannot be applied to all of them. Although this has not been highlighted by either side this is evident on the face of record which has not been shown to be wrong or incorrect. Secondly from this very fact it is also obvious that prima facie all of them are not likely to fall under the same heading. Co....