TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (9) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been issued from 28-10-1986. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants has pleaded that the appellants had taken the issue regarding the leviability of the duty on printed fabrics from 16-5-1983 with the authorities and even though the authorities informed them that the Additional Excise Duty had to be paid, they continued to contest the leviability of the duty and finally they approached the Hon'ble High Court to grant a stay subject to the appellants' executing a Bank Guarantee for the duty that may be determined by the department from time to time. In the meantime, the ld. Advocate pleaded that, the appellants also took out a licence and started filing RT 12 returns, This was done from July, 1994. He has pleaded that the demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisionally released and only recovery could have been made in terms of the bond. 4. He has also pleaded that the penalty could not have been levied as the appellants had been in touch with the authorities all along and there was no mala fide intention. 5. He has also pleaded that the duty has been demanded in respect of the goods which were lying uncleared and since the said goods had been cleared later on payment of duty, the demand of duty in terms of the order would amount to levy of duty second time over and he has sought for reduction to that extent. He has pleaded that the appellants had been informing the authorities regarding filing of D-3s after they took out the licence for the purpose of availing of the proforma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to be paid at that time. As regards suppression of fact, he pleaded that in spite of department's notice that the duty was payable, they continued to clear the goods, without informing to the authorities for some time. He has pleaded therefore that the appellants are liable to be penalty. 7. In regard to redemption fine, he has pleaded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in the case reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) = 1984 ECR 138 that the bond or the Bank Guarantee represents the goods and therefore redemption of fine fixed was in accordance with law. 8. In regard to total payment of duty, he has pleaded that the same may be asked to be verified and if the appellants paid the duty in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent case, the appellants took out a licence and started filing the RT 12 returns. Once the appellants had started complying with the requirements of the Central Excise Rules, meant for clearance of goods and the RT 12 returns were filed, all that the department was required to do was to assess these RT 12 returns and the question of issue of any SCN for finalisation of these RT 12 returns would not arise as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 497. The question of limitation therefore in this background would not arise at all so far as clearances which were covered by these RT 12 returns are concerned. In view of the above, we hold that the appellants do not have any case on limitation. 12. So f....