TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tune of Rs. 3,79,48,688/- along with interest thereon has been demanded besides imposing penalty of equal amount. The duty has been demanded while denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 as amended in relation to such excess production. The challenge is mainly on three grounds namely that though the inspection of the premises and the seizure of the records was done on 24th October, 2000, the show cause notice was issued only on 18th of February, 2002 without there being any justification for invoking extended period of limitation. Secondly, that no buyer has confirmed the alleged clandestine clearance of the goods for the period subsequent to 24th of October, 2000 and thirdly, that the duty element ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was conducted on 24th October, 2000, the investigation in that regard was in progress and it continued till February, 2001 and that is apparent from various statements recorded of the buyers by the investigating agency and referred to in the impugned order. He further submitted that the impugned order expressly discloses that some of the buyers of the excess product from the appellants continued to purchase the goods till January, 2001 having commenced such dealings with the appellants since April, 1999 and in that regard attention was drawn to the statement of Shri D.K. Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Ankur Fibre and Yarn, Tezpur Road, Ludhiana as also of Shri N.L. Sharma of M/s. Sharma Yarn Agency, Harcharan Nagar, Ludhiana, the statements whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er records that no documentary proof has been procured by the Department relating to under valuation for the period prior to 1st September, 1999, there are buyers like S.K. Bhatia who has stated that similar system of under invoicing was being followed since 1999. At the same time, it has also been stated by the buyer that he has been dealing with the appellants since September, 1999. In other words, as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants, prima facie, it does not appear that the Department has been able to produce any evidence regarding such allegation in relation to the period prior to 1st September, 1999. Even the example of the buyer noted in the order does not disclose transaction prior to September, 1999 since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench which gives complete answer to the arguments canvassed in that regard and the same is in the matter of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Therein, it was clearly held that in case of goods cleared by 100% EOU and sold in India whether with or without permission of the Development Commissioner, the assessment shall be made under proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Obviously, therefore, and more particularly considering that the Notification No. 8/97 does not disclose any different position as compared to Notification No. 125/84, which was the subject matter of the consideration of the Larger Bench, the ruling therein would squarely apply to the matter in hand and certainly cannot be ignored at the stage of stay a....