AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-8-1983. It is not necessary to go into the details of the said notification inasmuch as learned counsel for the appellants submitted at the outset that he was accepting the position that the excise duty was payable on the goods manufactured. He, however, presses these appeals only on the ground of limitation arguing that the show cause notices issued to all the appellants were beyond the period of six months and therefore, were time-barred. It is this aspect which needs to be determined in the present appeals. The periods which are involved for which the duty is demanded and the dates on which the show cause notices were issued to each of the appellants are mentioned in tabulated form hereunder :- S. No. Name Statements Period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11-3-1988; 6-9-1988; 19-1-1989 18-2-1984; 31-8-1987 9-2-1989 2. In view of the position disclosed above, it is not in dispute that all the show cause notices were issued beyond the period of six months. However, the respondents-Department invoked the provision of proviso to Section 11A of the Excise Act on the ground that there was mis-representation on the part of the appellants and the action of the appellants were not bona fide and therefore the extended period of limitation of five years would apply in these cases. 3. In order to appreciate the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent, few facts relevant for determining the issue of limitation are recapitulated below :- 4. The appellants are engaged in m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rule 56A of the said rules. Explanation - For the purposes of this notification, all stocks of inputs in the country, except such stocks as are clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid, shall be deemed to be inputs on which duty has already been paid." 6. The Department took the view that insofar as appellants are concerned, they do not fulfill the two conditions stipulated in the aforesaid proviso and therefore, would be liable to pay the excise duty as they were not entitled to the exemption under the aforesaid Notification No. 208/83 because of the said reason. The appellants on the other hand, maintained that they were fulfilling these conditions and therefore, the exemption should continue. 7. In the year 1983, af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illing these conditions contained in the Notification No. 208/83. However, in 'Motiram Tolaram v. Union of India [1999 (112) E.L.T. 749 (S.C.)], this court expressed doubts about the correctness of the view taken in Usha Martin Industries's case and referred the matter to Larger Bench. Ultimately, the Constitution Bench in 'Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries' [2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] overruled the Usha Martin Industries's case. This pronouncement came only in the year 2002. 9. It would be clear from the aforesaid judicial journey that the issues involved in the present case remained entangled in judicial battle for quite some time and only in the year 2002, the hazy picture was clarified. In such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity view taken by the judicial Member was correct who while taking this view observed as under : "As regards the plea that the demands are barred by time, we see log of force in the appellant's plea on this point. We notice that the appellants had obtained licence but the same was delicenced subsequently. There was a dispute with regard to exemption of these materials and the matter had been pending for issue of Notification under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The department had recorded statements from appellants as far back as 14-12-86 and show cause notice was issued only on 31-10-88. There is no finding recorded by the Collector regarding factors leading to wilful suppression and intention to evade duty. The ....