TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as AMSM) are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and are registered with the Central Excise Department. On specific intelligence that AMSM was indulging in removing cotton yarn in the guise of hank yarn (exempt from duty), the officers of Central Excise conducted search operations in the premises of AMSM, M/s. Babu Sydicate, Madurai, M/s. Janaki Yarn Traders, Erode, M/s. Shanmugasundaram & Co. on 11.12.2001. The premises of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Yarns, Erode and M/s. Sri Vijayalakshmi Agency, Erode (herein after referred to as SVA) were searched on 12.12.2001. The search conducted at the premises of the last three parties including SVA resulted in the seizure of cotton yarn on the reasonable belief that these were cleared by AMSM without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduction registers, cone winding registers and reeling registers. Again in the reeling registers, the production of hank yarn was inflated than the actual production by showing production against workers who had not actually attended to duty. The clandestine activity of AMSM was evident from the fact that AMSM was having only one 3 HP motor to run 20 reeling machines whereas the 3 HP motor can run at the maximum only four double sided reeling machines at a time which would show that the production of hank yarn was inflated in the registers. Statements of the Managing Director of AMSM Shri M. Ramamoorthy, Shri A.N. Bharathy, Mill Manager and Proprietrix Smt. P. Manimegalai of SVA was recorded among other statements. Based upon such evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said order, the appellants carried the issue before Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty, interest and penalty imposed on the appellants. However, reduced the redemption fine imposed / adjusted against M/s. Janaki Yarn Traders and M/s. Sri Lakshmi Yarns. Being aggrieved, the appellants are now before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel Shri S. Murugappan appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted he is confining his argument only on the ground of limitation and does not wish to argue on the ground of merits. He submitted that two show cause notices were issued on the same set of facts and therefore second show cause notice dated 7.5.2004 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proposed. Thereafter, on follow up action as well as further investigation, detail show cause notice was issued subsequently for the clandestine removal of the goods for the period between October 1999 and December 2001. It is also pointed out by him that the first show cause notice was for a different period, which is September 2001 to December 2001. The allegations raised in the second show cause notice is mainly regarding clandestine removal of the goods and further the documents relied upon are entirely different. That therefore, it cannot be said that both the show cause notices are in verbatim repetitive of one another or that was issued on the identical set of facts, evidences or allegations. It was also argued by the learned AR tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned counsel that both the show cause notices are based on identical set of facts, evidences or allegations. The show cause notice dated 6.6.2002 is for the period September to December 2001. The proposal in the show cause notice is for confiscation of the seized goods and demand of duty of Rs. 2,06,726/- from AMSM for removal of such goods to SVA, Janaki Yarn Traders and Sri Lakshmi Yarn clandestinely. The first show cause notice is thus limited to the duty demand pertaining to the seized quantity of goods only. The allegations are with regard to why the goods should not be confiscated and why duty should not be demanded for the confiscated goods. In the first show cause notice the relied upon documents are only 25. Whereas show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first show cause notice and the second show cause notice is entirely different. The department has relied upon 59 documents for issuance of the second show cause notice whereas in the first show cause notice they have relied upon 25 documents as stated earlier. All these would go to show that both the show cause notices are entirely different and therefore the judgment in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In addition, we do take note of the argument put forward by the learned AR that there was a time limit prescribed under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 for issuance of show cause notice proposing for confiscation of the goods when th....