TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent manufactured and stored 1805 nos. of different varieties of industrial filter (referred as said goods hereinafter) without proper accountal in Central Excise record and without observing Central Excise formalities. They have alleged to have been manufactured and removed 4,88,768 nos. of the said goods from 1-4-1979 to 18-11-1983 without determination and payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon amounting to Rs. 29,39,190.32 and without observing the Central Excise formalities. The respondent manufactured and removed 34102 nos. of the said goods during the period 16-11-1983 to 31-3-1984 but recorded only a portion of their total production and clearance in the statutory records and did not pay Central Excise duty. They h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case. This has clearly been mentioned in the show-cause notice that the respondents have removed the goods without payment of duty and without accountal in Central Excise records. This is sufficient ground for invoking longer period. 6. Heard Shri P.K. Das, ld. Advocate along with Shri D.K. Saha, ld. Consultant for the respondents. He relies of the findings of the Collector on the point of manufacture of the goods which reads as under : "21. The said firm in their replies to the show-cause notices and at the hearing, admitted that the firm got some quantity of goods manufactured by others out of the raw materials supplied by them, but denied that any goods purchased by them for trading purposes were subjected to any man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r were principal to principal basis. In view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CC & CE, Indore v. Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 186 (T) = 2004 (63) R.L.T. 259 (CESTAT-DEL.)]. the respondents cannot be treated as the manufacturers under the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue, it has been alleged that the respondents have contracted to supply certain goods to the customer by utilizing the services of the sub-contractor. In view of this fact, the assessees were the main co-contractors and real manufacturer. Ld. Advocate submits that the above ground of the Revenue is beyond the show-cause notice. He also relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not dispute that the Department was well aware of trading activities of the Revenue. Hence this demand is barred by limitation. In view of this, he submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue be dismissed. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the records. We first take the question of time bar. The Commissioner's observations in this regard are contained in Para 19 of the Order-in-Original which is reproduced below :- "19. I have gone through the case records, the replies to the show cause notices and the submission at the hearings. From the show-cause notices it transpires that M/s. Filtronic obtained two Central Excise Manufacturing Licenses in form L-4 Numbering 1/IV/MVT (FLT)XI/3/73 for manufacture of Motor Vehicles ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om time to time and submitted R.T. 12 returns which were duly checked and returned to the assessees without any objection upto December, 1983. As the department was fully aware of the trading activities and the manufacturing activities of the said firm the irregularities, if any, should have been dealt with by issuing show-cause notice to them within the time limit of 6 months. In view of this position, the provisions of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A for extending the time limit upto 5 years for demanding duty foregone cannot be invoked. The demand for the period covering from 1-4-1979 to 23-8-1983 is thus barred by limitation." It is seen from the above findings that the Department was awar....