2001 (12) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tory on 19-2-92, conducted scrutiny of the records, took statements of the proprietor of the concern and made allied inquiries and, on the basis of the results of the investigations, framed a case of clandestine removal of the goods against the party. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25-4-96 was issued by the Department demanding a duty of Rs. 3,24,171/- on the goods cleared during the aforesaid period, invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. This proposal was contested by the appellants in their reply to the show cause notice, wherein the appellants, inter alia, stated that, by letter dated 10-4-91, they had informed the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise that he inten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ld. Advocate, Shri K.K. Anand submits that the manufacturing activity which gave rise to the demand of duty was started by the appellants on 27-5-91 and was closed down on 19-2-92 and that activity has not been revived since then due to financial hardships. He concedes that, during the period of dispute, the appellants manufactured excisable goods and cleared the same without payment of duty, but that was under a bona fide belief that they were entitled to exemption, being a small scale manufacturer. Ld. Counsel further submits that, as early as on 10-4-91, the appellants had sent a letter to the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector informing him that they intended to start manufacture of Clutch Facing and Washers for motor vehicles and solici....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or vacating the penalty. 3. Ld. SDR, Shri A.S. Bedi opposes the above prayer on the strength of the findings contained in the orders of the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. He has banked on the statement dated 19-2-92 of the appellants, wherein the appellants admitted the duty liability. According to ld. DR, once the assessee admitted the duty liability in a statement which has not been retracted by him, he was estopped from resisting the demand of duty on the ground of limitation. He prays for upholding the impugned order. 4. I have considered the submissions. I find that the appellant has not contested the demand of duty on the excisability point of view. He admits that the goods cleared during the....