1995 (12) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of Oil Mill Machinery and Spare Parts for use in vegetable oil mill industries. These goods are covered under Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Approximately, 90% of the production of the appellant is exported to various countries in the world,  whereas the balance 10% is sold in the local market in India. The appellant has taken out a Central Excise Licence in Form L-4 and has been complying with all the formalities as contemplated under the various provisions of the said Act or the Rules made thereunder. The appellant on the advice of the local Central Excise authorities sought for the permission to work under Rule 56C of Central Excise Rules, 1944....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. In support of his contention, he would like to cite the following cases :- 1.  Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 243 (Tribunal). 2. Ganga Spinning & Weaving Mills, Ludhiana v. CCE, Chandigarh - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1674 (Tribunal). 3. Motilal and Company, Thana v. CCE, Bombay - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 157 (Tri.). 4. Light Roofings Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise, Kanchipuram and two Others - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 738 (Madras). 5. Escorts Ltd., (FED), Faridabad v. CCE, New Delhi - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 214 (Tribunal). 6. CCE, Kanpur  v. Hindustan Scientific G....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med benefit of Notification 105/80 in the classification list and cleared the goods by wrongly getting the classification list approved with reference to this notification in spite of the fact that they were working under Rule 56C. There was suppression of facts involved inasmuch as they did not mention all the facts in the relevant classification list. Hence, the demand was not time-barred. 7. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the order-in-original itself shows that permission to work under Rule 56C had been granted to the appellants on 20-8-1981, whether the permission was provisional or final did not matter as the fact that the appellant had requested for extending the permission had not been denied or disputed....