2001 (9) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Central Excise Act. 2. Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants entered into a contract No. VSP/Con-T/26/1982-83, dated 2-8-1982 with M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Project (VSP) for supply, fabrication and erection of building steel structures in the Sinter Plant Zone Part-II of V.S.P.; that VSP supplied them duty paid raw material such as angles, plates, channels, etc.; that they merely cut the raw materials to specific lengths and punch holes and weld the same at the requisite places; that these loose parts, in a semi-finished condition, were transported to the erection site and were erected through a piece by piece process on a firmly mounted platform which ultimately emerged as a shed. The learned Advocat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt about the activities undertaken by them, nor did they obtain any Central Excise licence; that the Central Excise law places legal obligations on an assessee in a positive way which cannot be wished away; that under "Self Removal Procedure" duty is cast upon the assessee to intimate to the Department about goods manufactured and cleared by him; that as such extended period of limitation is invokable in the present matter. 4. We have considered the plea of both the sides. We find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate that there was no suppression of facts on their part as the fact of fabrication and erection work undertaken by them was known to the Department. The Department has issued a show cause notice to them in ....