TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....As a result of the investigation, Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants for recovery of duty and also imposition of penalty. On conclusion of the adjudication proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order. In the Show Cause Notice there were eight demands in Annexures D-1 to D-8. The Adjudicating Authority in para 18 of the order held that the demands in Annexure D-1, D-2 and D-3 pertaining to illuminated sign board and GANS are not recoverable under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the CE Act 1944. Hence, he dropped those demands. However, in respect of the demands in Annexure D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7 and D-8, he has held that the facts relating to these demands were suppressed deliberately with an intension to evade payment of duty. Therefore, he has confirmed the demands mentioned in the above Annexures. The duties involved are as follows: Annexure D-4 - Rs. 53,216/- Annexure D-5 - Rs. 10,88,602/- Annexure D-6 - Rs. 2,319/- Annexure D-7 - Rs. 6,20,268/- & Annexure D-8 - Rs. 5,05,564/-. The total duty demanded comes to Rs. 22,47,969/-. The Commissioner has limited the penalty under Section 11 AC to the quantum of duty liability which has aris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following reason. The debit notes were handed over to the officers after search of the factory premises in response to the summons dated 15-9-1998 issued to the appellants. When all the information wanted by the officers were furnished and enquiries instituted and the statements recorded from the appellants, there can be no question of suppression of facts with the intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellants. Therefore, the extended period of limitations under Section 11A (1) is not invokable. In the case of Highland Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 502, it was held that when the documents all the available informations were supplied to the department on the date of search of the appellant factory and the department has come to know of the activities of the appellants from various records, the charge of suppression is not sustainable. Moreover, there was a bonafide dispute on classification of adhesive vinyl stickers between the appellants and the Director General of Central excise Intelligence and the Commissioner of Central excise Bangalore-I, each classifying under different tariff entries viz., 94.05, 39.10, 49.01. When such disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove holds goods. Highland Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat-2000 (121) E.L.T. 502. (v) A demand of Rs. 5,05,564/- (Annexure D-8) has been confirmed on the alleged removal of awnings by the appellants under the invoices of Vivek Trading Company (VTC). It was submitted that VTC had no sufficient infrastructure for the manufacture of complete awnings and other commodities and they used to get their goods manufactured from other units on job work basis. The raw materials purchased from VTC under purchase invoices were directly sent from the raw material supplier to the appellant (job worker). The raw materials were acknowledged by the appellant job worker at their factory and accounted properly in the Books of accounts. After the job work was completed, the finished goods were dispatched to the buyers of VTC under the Commercial invoice of VTC. Being a SSI unit availing the exemption Notification No. 1/93, the goods were cleared without payment of duty. Since VTC were not conversant with Central Excise matters, they had not followed the proper procedure. This is only a technical error, which can be condoned, as the clearances of VTC were within the exemption limit during the relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be time barred. He has clearly held that the longer period is not invokable in these cases. Therefore, we are taking up the demands made in the rest of the annexures. Out of the five annexures, the liability of Rs. 2,319/- in Annexure D-6 has already been accepted by the party. Now we are left with the demands in respect of four annexures. 7. The largest amount of demand of Rs. 10,88,602/- is as per annexure D-5. This demand is in respect of Fascia alleged to have been manufactured and cleared by the appellants. It is seen that the Show Cause Notice-proposes classification of the above item under chapter 39. However, the Commissioner in his adjudication order has classified the same under chapter 94. It is very clear that the adjudication has gone beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. There are many case laws on the issue. We are mentioning the following. (i) CCE, Ghaziabad v. Dabur India Limited - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 255 (Tri.-Del.) -Adjudication - Show Cause Notice - Classification sought by department under one tariff heading - But in adjudication classification done under another tariff heading and demand confirmed - HELD : Completely new case made out of which assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts. Therefore, the issue of belated Show Cause Notice dated 2-3-2001 is bad in law and is clearly time barred by applying the ratio of Highland Dye Works case. The appellants have stated that these goods were directly supplied by the manufacturers to the ITC and HCC on payment of duty. Therefore, the inclusion of the value of the goods to the value of awnings supplied by the appellants to ITC and HCC is not correct for the reason that the appellants supplied awnings without fascia, hence the above demand in Annexure D-7 is also not sustainable. 10. As regards the demand in Annexure D-8 to the tune of Rs. 5,05,564/-, the main allegation is that these goods were removed without payment of duty by issuing invoices in the name of Vivek Trading Company. The appellants have stated that they did job work for Vivek Trading Company as they did not have proper infrastructure. After receiving the raw materials they completed the job work and finished goods were dispatched to the buyers of VTC under the commercial invoices of VTC. Since the clearances of VTC were within the exemption limit for SSI, no duty was paid. In any case, even in this case we find that the demand is time barred. In th....