TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (1) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 30-10-1987, the appellants were not entitled to claim the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as the said notification was amended by Notification No. 244/87, dated 30-10-1987 so as to disentitle units registered with the DGTD from the benefit of the notification. The adjudicating authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q. 2. Arguing for the appellants Shri Bipin Garg, learned Counsel submits that he is confining his arguments to the aspect of limitation as it is the case of the appellants that the show cause notice issued on 8-5-1989 was hit by limitation and that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department, as there was no suppression on their part of the fact o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there was any suppression on their part and in this connection, he cites the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 76 in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE and S.D. Kemexc Industries v. CCE, Calcutta reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 377 (Tribunal). He, therefore submits that the entire demand is time barred and the impugned order may be set aside and appeal allowed. 3. Opposing the contention of the learned Counsel, learned DR, Shri D.S. Negi submits that the appellants were operating under the SRP system. They had filed price list and classification list and they were bound under the Rules to file fresh classification list with any change in the rate of duty brought about by any notification or otherwise a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uppression in the form of non-disclosure of registration of their unit with the DGTD is clearly with a view to obtain undue benefit/undue advantage. The case law cited by the learned Counsel is distinguishable. In the first case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, M/s. Lubri Chem. Ind. Ltd., Hon'ble Supreme Court had no occasion to go into the question of applicability of extended period of limitation as it was conceded by the learned Counsel for the Union of India that it was not a case of the Revenue that there was a mis-declaration. In the case of Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co., Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that where facts are known to both the sides, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble because in that case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no suppression or mis-declaration as all the relevant information had been disclosed to the Department and there was correspondence between the appellants and the Department on the subject matter of dispute in that case. In the light of above discussion, we hold that the demand is not hit by time bar and uphold the impugned order confirming duty demand. However, having regard to the quantum of duty and attendant circumstances, we agree with the learned Counsel that penalty imposed is on the high side and reduce it to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). 6. [Assent per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - It is observed in this case that the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants' contention in this regard has remained unsubstantiated whereas the Department has been able to show that they have continued to avail the benefit to which they were not entitled by withholding the relevant information. The case law cited by the learned Counsel was distinguishable on this count. 9. Similarly, merely because a show cause notice for normal period has been issued in a parallel or different proceedings, it cannot be said that the Department was barred from issuing another show cause notice invoking larger period for the simple reason that there was no provision in the law to this effect. Furthermore, investigation is a process in which enquiry is gradually extended to cover a larger period area or persons a....