2004 (7) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he penalty imposed on the appellants. 3. The appellant's Company being a S.S.I. unit also undertake job works from various concerns including M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (M/s. B.E.L.) and M/s. Indian Telephone Industries (M/s. I.T.I.). The Central Excise Officers of Bangalore visited the premises of the appellants on 28-2-85 and effected seizure of documents from the appellants. The Officers also came across another entity M/s. C.G.S. Alloys, the proprietor of which is Mrs. Girija Sinnas who is one of the Directors of the appellant's Company. The Officers sought to construe M/s. C.G.S. Alloys as a non-existent entity and clubbed the clearances with those of the appellant's Company. Accordingly a Show Cause Notice was issued to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arred or not? (v)     To consider the imposition of penalty on the Company and the Managing Director in the light of judgment stated by the Advocate. The Commissioner in the impugned order allowed the benefit of Notification No. 187/84 with effect from 1-8-94 and held the notice for the period from 1-4-80 to 31-1-81 as time-barred. He demanded duty of Rs. 8,32,582/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the appellants under Rules 9, 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Advocate pleaded that the imposition of penalty is not justified as the demand confirmed relates to for the period 1981-85. At that time the appellants were not including the value of the material supplied free of charge for pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the RT 12 returns from April 1980 was not being honoured by the appellants. There was no protest or representation on this issue. Therefore the extended period of demanding duty by issue of show cause notice is properly invocable as the Tribunal in several cases intentionally continued to pay lower duty, extended time is invocable. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that from the Final Order No. 808 to 810/98, dated 22-4-98 in Para 7, it was mentioned that - "... He submits that the demand in the SCN has been raised beyond the period of 5 years and such demand is not sustainable. He submit that duty to that extent will be brought down by Rs. 70,000/-." The show cause notice was c....