1997 (12) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The cross-objection filed by the Department merely supports the impugned order. We have heard both sides. 2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of powerlooms as well as winding machines and spare parts, was filing price lists from time to time and on approval of the same, was clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty. The dispute in this appeal relates to machines covered by price list in Part II in respect of the period October, 1982 to September, 1987. Appellant was maintaining RG 1 register and other registers in respect of machines and spare parts. There was surprise inspection on 29-9-1987 when the officers came across order registers for 1987-88 and 1984-85 which contained entries of orders received by the workshop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation the supply of replacements which was required to be made in the coming year and inclusion of the price thereof in the price of the machine shown in the contract. It was also contended that all the facts were within the knowledge of the officers concerned and there was no suppression of any material aspect as alleged. Overruling these contentions, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. 3. Before the show cause notice, the amount covered by the demand was paid by the appellant under protest. Pages 22 to 57 contain a list of the dates on which clearances of replacement and spare parts had been made and the total amount of duty required to be paid but not paid at the time of clearances. It is contended ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 11A of the Act and such allegations are absent in the subject show cause notice and, therefore, the larger period of limitation would not be available. We have gone through the show cause notice and the annexure thereto. The notice itself states that the manufacture of spare parts produced for replacement, breakage or shortage was not accounted for in RG 1 register, that the Assistant Manager of Stores of the appellant admitted this fact, that the Sales Manager of the appellant gave a statement of the quantum and duty involvement of spare parts removed by the appellant during the period in question without payment of duty. The notice specifically alleged that the appellant had suppressed the fact of production of such parts in their docu....