2001 (9) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal is that the goods manufactured in Unit No. 2 were partially processed with the aid of power in Unit No. 1 and these were cleared free of duty under exemption Notification No. 49/86-C.E. While giving the finding both the authorities have not taken into consideration an important point which was made on behalf of the applicants that they were exclusively supplying shoes to Bata India Ltd. and that in all cases where they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 49/86 and cleared shoes without payment of duty no duty has been charged by them from M/s. Bata India Ltd. The applicants had, therefore, nothing to gain and have had no motive for misdeclaring the facts since the entire duty benefit was passed on to Bata India Ltd. The Hon'ble ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard to the question of applying the extended period of limitation.  (i)      Since the applicants had nothing to gain by misrepresenting or misdeclaring dutiable goods as exempted, there could be no intention to evade payment of duty, which is an essential ingredient for the applicability of the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A.  (ii)     The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that "in the instant case, to the extent that there was failure to disclose the fact that there were in fact two units and one of them was claiming exemption under Notification No. 49/86 justifies the charge of suppression." The applicants submit that they had obtained a Central Excise Licen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Revenue had made such allegations, onus was on them to prove this allegation. The applicants could not be asked to prove the negative." 2. Arguing the application, Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate submits that the above mistakes may be rectified. He refers to the various paragraphs of the impugned order and submits that the mistakes are obvious and apparent on the face of the records and, therefore, the same may be corrected. 3. Ms. Ananya Ray, ld. SDR submits that the Tribunal's order is detailed one and all the points have been dealt with. She submits that the application filed by the applicants appears to be a prayer for review of the order. She submits that the Tribunal does not have the power to review its own order.....