2002 (9) TMI 608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants are engaged in the process of excavating limestones from the mines which is then crushed into different sizes before being sold to Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL; that in the present matter show cause notice dated 27-8-96 was issued to them for demanding central excise duty for the period from September, 1991 to June, 1992; that the Commissioner under the impugned order has confirmed the demand and imposed penalty invoking extended period of limitation holding that the appellants have wilfully and deliberately not maintained any statutory record regarding production and clearances of crushed limestone and had not submitted the returns as prescribed under the law. The learned Consultant, further, submitted that after exchange of co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gokak Patel Volcart v. CCE, 1987 (28) E.L.T. 53 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that reliance on the explanation to Section 11A in obtaining extension of the period is not tenable as the High Court had only stayed the collection of excise duty and not the levy of the duty. The learned Consultant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivraj Tobacco v. CCE, Kanpur, 2001 (128) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.). He also mentioned that once the department has issued show cause notice on 18-12-91 and 25-9-91 it cannot be claimed that there was suppression of fact about the manufacture and clearance of crushed limestone during the subsequent period. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of BPL India Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein intention to avoid duty has been held to be proved as the appellants manufactured and removed the products without any intimation to the department. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been controverted by the Revenue that a show cause notice dated 18-12-91 was issued to the appellants demanding duty in respect of crushed lime- stone by invoking the extended period of limitation since the duty was demanded for the period November, 1988 to March, 1991. It has also not been disputed by the Revenue that another show cause notice was issued on 25/26-9-91 for the normal....