TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) read with Section 11A(1) of the Act. They have also been imposed penalty of Rs. 70,000/- under Rules 173Q and 226 of the CE Rules. The Collector has also ordered confiscation of the plant and machinery with an option to redeem the same on payment of duty of Rs. 10,000/-. There is also a imposition of penalty on Shri N. Srinivasan, formerly Vice President of the appellant's company, who is not in appeal before us. 2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of electrical starters, circuit contractor relays, oil circuit boards, HT contractors, control panels, vacuum circuit breakers and spares therefor. They are holders of Central Excise licence L4 Nos. 1/71 and 5/75. 3. M/s. Kilburn Electricals Ltd (hereinafter referred to as KEL) are also manufacturers of the above electrical products. They are also holders of Central Excise licence L4 No. 1/87. One Shri S. Srinivasan functioned as the Vice President of the appellants as also the Managing Director of M/s. KEL. 4. On gathering information that the appellants herein are indulging in evasion of Central Excise duty, the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion, Madras searched the premises at Ayanavaram and Ambattur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....captively, no price list has been filed and appropriate duty has not been determined and statutory accounts did not reflect the true nature of the clearances of the goods and accounts were manipulated to show that the goods were removed for captive consumption, whereas the goods were in fact not consumed captively. After considering the reply furnished by the appellant vide their letter dated 9-11-1990 and after personal hearing, the Commissioner has passed the order-in-original which is impugned before us. Aggrieved by the said order-in-original, the appellants have come in appeal on the following grounds: (a) The department was aware of the age-old practice of removal of goods from bonded stock under nil gate passes indicating therein "exempted for captive consumption" with debit entries in the RG1 and submission of monthly RT 12s that was in vogue. (b) Omission to mention the notification in the GP is only a procedural mistake and it cannot take away the substantive right to the benefit of notification. (c) Longer period of limitation been invoked on the mere presumption of suppression of fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submitted that the appellants are also eligible for Modvat Credit. So far as invocation of longer period of limitation is concerned, he argued that longer period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case inasmuch as the department was well aware of the operations of the appellants and they have been periodically submitting the monthly returns. Therefore, the allegation of suppression cannot be held against the appellants and he sought for setting aside the order impugned. 6. Shri A. Jayachandran, learned DR appearing for the department defended the order impugned. He also referred to the comments forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner (R&T), Chennai-III Commissionerate vide C.No.V/NIL/2/364/2001-R&T, dated 10-1-2002, a copy of which has been placed in the file. The learned DR prayed for rejection of the appeal. 7. We have carefully considered rival submissions and gone through the case records. We observe that in this case, the Commissioner by the order impugned has dealt with the case of two parties viz. M/s. Macneill & Magor Ltd. (the appellants herein) and M/s. Kilburn Electricals Ltd. Both the companies have been found to have contravened various provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter in pages 370, 380, 373, 386, 394 etc. The relevant notification for captive consumption applicable to the present case is Notification No. 217/86 as amended. This notification at the material time permitted removal of goods for captive consumption within the factory of production, whereas in the present case, the goods have been removed from Ayanavaram to Ambattur and the Ambattur factory belonged to another manufacturer i.e. KEL., Shri Ramani Sundaram, accountant of the appellants as well of KEL and Shri Ramamurthy, Stores in charge of KEL Ambattur have clearly admitted that the goods have been removed to the Ambattur factory of KEL, without the cover of statutory transport documents. In view of the above findings, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue that the removals of the goods covered by the gate passes noted above cannot be considered as removal for captive consumption and hence duty is demandable for the removals covered by the gate passes noted above. 9. Coming to the next question as to whether longer period of limitation can be invoked for demand of duty in this case, we find that a plea has been taken that the appellants have been maintaining all ....