1999 (2) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d then were used captively on the looms. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 13-12-1990 issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay that the appellants had not filed at the proper time the classification list, price list and had cleared the excisable goods without proper gate passes and had also not filed RT 12 returns with the proper officer. It was alleged in the show cause notice that it amounted to the suppression of facts. The Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay who adjudicated the matter confirmed a demand of Rs. 629.64 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/-. 2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been duly issued to the appellants o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny clarification from the department, on their own, they had suppressed the fact of manufacture and have removed the goods for captive consumption without payment of Central Excise duty. He referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Kin Engg. Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 1990 (30) ECR 1999 (Tribunal) where it had been observed that it is not necessary that word 'suppression' should be specifically mentioned in the show cause notice if the facts are otherwise mentioned in the notice. He also referred to the Tribunals' decision in the case of Punjab Anand Lamp Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 628 (T) = 1989 (23) ECR 218 (Tribunal) where it ha....