1997 (11) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise Act, 1944. It is also for waiver of penalty of Rs. 66 lakh against the applicants M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. under Rule 173Q and of a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri B.S. Shetty, the other applicant who is the Managing Director of M/s. Rukma Chem Products (P) Ltd. now M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, the ld. Chartered Accountant for the applicants, submitted that the applicants have a strong case on merits. The department has classified the goods produced by them viz. PEG 300, PEG 400 and PEG 600 under Chapter 39 as against the claim of the applicants that these products as separate chemically defined organic compound will fall under Chapter 29. The ld. Counsel point....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sel submitted that their factory accounts have been subjected to audit by the Central Excise Revenue Audit Party as well as the Internal Audit Party of the Commissionerate and therefore, it cannot be said that the demand is on account of some new facts recovered by the department. Hence, the applicants cannot be charged with suppression of facts. The demand period is beyond six months because there were show cause notices issued on 1-1-1993 for the period 14-9-1989 to May, 1991 and show cause notice dated 3-3-1993 for the period 1-2-1988 to 30-9-1989. This was the period when the unit was known as M/s. Rukma Chem Products (P) Ltd. and this unit was taken over by the present applicants M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. in Sept. 1989. It was further arg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er argued that Shri Shetty as the Managing Director of the erstwhile M/s. Rukma Chem has the knowledge of the composition of the product having more than 5 monomer unit and yet the correct declaration was not made in the classification list, which amounts to suppression of facts. The ld. D.R. further referred to the Commissioner's reasoning in the order to show that there were three opportunities of personal hearing granted to the applicants who have chosen not availed of those opportunities and hence the Commissioner was constrained to adjudicate the matter. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that a perusal of the profits & loss accounts for the year ending 31-3-1997 shows that there was an amount of over Rs. 36 crores due to them from sundr....