TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, M/s. Ratan Industries P. Ltd. and its Director, Shri Girish Goel, questioning the confirmation of the duty and imposition of penalties against them through the impugned order by the Commissioner, while Appeal No. E/2261/02 has been preferred by the Revenue for modification of the impugned order for awarding interest under Section 11AB and imposition of separate penalty under Rule 173Q on the appellant No. 1. 2. The duty has been confirmed and penalties have been imposed on appellants 1 and 2 by denying them the benefit of exemption Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86 for the period 1-4-97 to 3-6-2000 on their goods hubs manufactured and cleared by them during that period. They were served with the show cause notice on 15-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 2 at the very outset has contended that the duty demand on the face of it is time-barred and that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as all the facts regarding the manufactures of the goods (hubs) for animal driven vehicles, by the appellants were in the knowledge of the Department. 4. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order by contending that there was suppression of true facts by the appellants 1 and 2 and the extended period of limitation had been rightly invoked. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. We find from the record that the appellants 1 and 2 are engaged in the manufacture of cast articles of iron and steel, hubs of ani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... declared by them and the duty demand of Rs. 1,24,586.00 was raised from them. The adjudicating authority also ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them besides redemption fine of Rs. 65,000/- vide order, dated 27-2-97. This order was challenged by them and the first appellate authority virtually confirmed that order and also denied the exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86, through order dated 12-9-97. The appeal of the appellants 1 and 2 against that order was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order, dated 8-9-99. The dispute regarding the duty liability in respect of these very goods even came up for settlement before the Commissioner under the KVSS and the perusal of the Certifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larations under Rule 173B, classification lists and RT 12 returns during the period in question, declaring the hubs as of ADV and claimed the benefit of the exemption notification, the Department could easily visit the factory and see the actual nature of the hubs being manufactured by them. Moreover, there is no tangible evidence to say that the hubs manufactured by the appellants 1 and 2 during the period in question could not be used in the ADV. The test report of Dr. Prashant Kumar, Professor, IIT, Kanpur, dated 15-2-2001 on which much reliance has been placed, does not in any manner prove suppression of facts by the appellants 1 and 2. He in his report has only stated that the hubs manufactured by these appellants are stronger than tho....