1981 (7) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....opment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') and are having a factory at Sanat Nagar for manufacture of steel furniture and steel structures. 3. It was alleged that the appellants manufactured goods falling under Central Excise Tariff (C.E.T.) Item 68, but did not pay duty leviable thereon under the said Item presuming that their factory was exempted from payment of duty since their total turnover in the financial year preceding the issue of Notification No 176/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 was less than ₹ 30 lakhs. 4. It had also been alleged that the appellants did not pay Central Excise duty, on some of the goods classifiable under Item 40 of the CET also. 5. Since the Unit is owned by the Cor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cial involvement in the Unit. 10. They had also submitted that before the Collector the number of items which had been taken as manufactured by them and dutiable under Tariff Item 68 were in fact not dutiable. The Collector had not considered their submissions and had not passed any order on this aspect. 11. They have further claimed that the demands are time barred under Rule 10 of the Rules as there was no clandestine manufacture or removal. Thus Rule 9(1) read with Rule 9(2) is not applicable because they had informed the Assistant Collector as an enclosure to their classification list about the other Units of the Corporation manufacturing excisable goods. 12. The appellants were hard at Madras on 11-7-1981 through Shri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ose urged during the personal hearing. 17. On going through the case records, the Board finds that the appellants in their classification lists dated 26-4-1977 and 16-5-1977 had included the goods which were later classified under Tariff Item 68 and the Assistant Collector while approving the classification lists had directed the jurisdictional Superintendent to examine the excisability of these products. As claimed by the appellants, no subsequent directive was issued to the appellants by the Department on the subject. The appellants had also informed the Department as an annexures to their classification lists dated 19-1-1978 and 6-3-1978, the names of the other Units owned by the Corporation. 18. In these circumstances, the B....