TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (7) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras on 24-7-1979 whereby he disposed of eight appeals filed by the Company against eight different orders of the Assistant Collector, passed in respect to different units of the Company. The particulars of the Order-in-Original, and the appeal references are all detailed in the Order-in-Appeal. 2. All these revision petitions stand transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to be treated as appeals before the Tribunal. These are being disposed of as such. 3. The proceedings against the Company emanated from the notices given to different units operating in and around Mangalore wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, and to that extent the declaration was mis-leading, and tantamount to withholding of relevant records, and that this had resulted in failure to pay excise duty, leviable on beedies, which in Department's view had to be treated to have been manufactured after 1-3-1975. 5. The Company took up the position that packing or labelling was post-manufacturing operation, and that the `manufacture' was complete as soon as beedies came into existence, and as such whatever number of beedies was lying in stock as on the expiry of 28-2-1975, whether in packages or loose or due for packing, ought to be deemed to have been manufactured before the crucial date i.e. 1-3-1975. They further pleaded that in any case there had been no concealment or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e confirmed in relation to six units with reference to Rule 9(2), and the other two units under Rule 10A. 7. The appellant assailed these findings in these appeals, which are being taken up together for disposal in view of common question of facts and law being raised. Shri K. Chennabasappa, Advocate appearing for the appellants canvassed the same proposition, as were taken up before the lower authorities, and reiterated in the ground of appeal; namely that manufacture stood completed as soon as beedies came into existence, and that packing and labelling was incidental, in order to facilitate marketing and not in any case essential to the process of manufacture, and further that there was no mis-declaration on the part of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority himself in relation to this very matter that there had been no mis-declaration or withholding of information. He thus contended that in face of this position, the charge of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, so as to attract Rule 9(2) was no longer sustainable, and that the only rule to apply was Rule 10, and consequently residuary provisions of Rule 10A could also not be invoked, as has been done in two of the eight cases, and that judging by any criterion the demand raised after about 22 months, in all cases was clearly barred by time. 10. Sicne this contention appeared to be prima facie tenable, we did not think necessary to further go into the question, as to at what stage, the manufacturing process could be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the pre-budget stock as on 1-3-1975, though, emanating from separate notices, issued under Rule 198, has himself absolved the appellants of all the charges of mis-declaration or wilful mis-statement of facts or suppression of records; otherwise also, we find it to be a case where no inference of any mis-declaration or concealment can legitimately be drawn. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed before us a copy of the AR 1 form, dated 4-3-1975, clearly indicating that the stock of "hand-made" beedies cleared thereby was from pre-budget stock as on 28-2-1975. This form was received in the office on 5-3-1975 and duly certified for clearance on 7-3-1975. It is stated by the learned Counsel that this was the position in relation to all t....