1996 (3) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned common order. The common order gives rise to yet another batch of appeals filed either by ITC or by some of its Directors. The applications filed in those appeals under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 have been disposed of already. Of the appeals now before us, all the appeals, except one, are filed by manufacturers of cigarettes as job workers of ITC. Law regards these job workers as manufacturers of cigarettes and they are required to pay excise duty at the time of clearance of cigarettes. We are told that these job workers, under contract with ITC, get only conversion charges at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per 1000 cigarettes. In other words, actually excise duty is paid by ITC on their behalf. The period in question ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of differential duty due by six job workers is Rs. 115.27 crores. The total penalty levied on all the job workers is Rs. 6.76 crores. Since the period covered by the demand is 1983-1987, only a very small part of this period fell within six months of the date of the show cause notice. In other words, the bulk of the period in question fell beyond the six months period. Demand cannot be saved unless the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act could be successfully invoked. The Collector of Central Excise has taken the view that the extended period could be invoked and that on the facts proved against ITC, the differential duty demand would be valid. 5. We have been taken through the averments in th....