2002 (5) 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

....behalf of the Respondents nor was there any request for adjournment. We observe that in the past also, no one had appeared on behalf of the Respondent. In fact the notice sent to them has been returned by the Postal Authorities with the remark "Factory closed ". Accordingly, we take up the appeal for disposal after perusing the records and hearing Shri Ashok Kumar, learned Departmental Representative. 3. The respondents manufacture steel tubes and pipes availing exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988. The Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 94/98, dated 21-10-98, denied the benefit of the Notification No. 202/88, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 14,62,650/- f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....goods and cleared them without payment of duty. Reliance has also been placed on the following decisions : (i)      Leasureland P. Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 489 (Tribunal) (ii)     Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. CCE, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 489 (Tribunal) 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. Notification No. 202/88-C.E. exempts from duty of excise tubes and pipes and blanks thereof of steel other than seamless tubes and pipes of steel subject to the condition that inputs used are "skelp, hoops, sheets of thickness not exceeding 5 mm, strips of thickness not exceeding 5 mm and flats of thickness not exceeding 5 mm." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y." 5.2. A perusal of the decision in the case of Jagan Tubes Ltd. reveals that the demands were held to be time-barred and all appellants therein (except one) had filed writ petition in the High Court opposing the levy of Central Excise duty and there were no stay orders also from the High Court and "no action was taken by the Departmental authorities to issue show cause notice within the time-limit prescribed in the Central Excise law to recover the duty." The Tribunal also observed in the said decision that non-levy of duty in these cases was not the result of fraud or suppression of facts or violation of rules with intent to evade payment of duty but because of conflicting views on classification in the department itself. The Tr....