TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by M/s KSF (PYU) 2) I hereby disallow the exemption benefit under notification 6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 as claimed in declaration No 1/2000-01 dated 8.5.2000 under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by M/s KSF (PYU) 3) I hereby confirm the demand of Central Excise duty totally amounting to Rs. 38,24,41,595/-/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Crore Twenty Four Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) for the period April 2000 to March 2001 and order the recovery from them under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4) I impose penalty of Rs. 38,24,41,595/-/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Crore Twenty Four Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) on them under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5) I order recovery of interest at appropriate rate on the duty confirmed at Sr No (3) above, from them under the provision of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (B) In respect of Show Cause notices mentioned at (Sr No 1 to 32) of Table at Para No 12, covering the period from April 2001 to June 2001:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) on each noticee at Sr No (5) to (9) i.e. (5) Shri Singhvi, G M Sr President, (6) Shri S B Kamath Sr Vice President (7) Shri G M Jain, Vice President (Fin) (8) Shri D B Roongtha, Factory Manager (9) Shri R S Dhand, Vice President (Marketing Processed Yarn) of the impugned Show Cause Notice, under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Act, 1944/ Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as applicable at relevant time of the SCN period. 2.1 Appellants (M/s Konkan Synthetic Fibers (KSF) (Prop Century Enka Ltd) having Central Excise Registration No KSFBOM- III/PNL-II/MHD/47/92 for manufacture of partially oriented yarn 9POY) and different types of processed yarn (PY) falling under Chapter sub heading 5402.32, 5402.43, 5402.52 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 respectively in the single composite plant. They availed MODVAT/ CENVAT Credit and paid the Central Excise duty advalorem. 2.2 The requested for bifurcation of their existing unit into two units for implementing, product management concept policy and requested separate Registration on the basis of information provided by them and as requested the existing manufactory of appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or @36.8% from Pune. • The sale policy of recovering the duty @ 36.8% continued even after the so called bifurcation. 2.6 Since there was only one central sales policy of M/s CEL and the goods produced by processed yarn product group of erstwhile KSF (Prop M/ CEL) and the goods produced by the so called new site created on the basis of same product group in the name of KSF(PYU) being the same, it appeared that old and new stock of such goods was sold at same price through depot of CEL as per the sales policy. The old stock was cleared on payment of duty at the rate of 36.8%, whereas new stock was cleared at specific rate in terms of notification 6/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000. Thus fraudulent intentions to evade payment of duty, by claiming themselves to be independent texturizer was quite evident. 2.7 The fact that artificial bifurcation done was only on paper and unit continue working as one composite unit, is evident from the following: • Prior to 26.04.2000.for Sales Tax Department, KSF (Prop CEL) Mahad was functioning as single unit engaged in manufacturing of POY and Processed Yarn. Accordingly, it was registered with the Sales Tax Department in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on them under Rule 173Q of CER 1944 read with section 11AC of CEA, 1944. v. Interest should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of Section 11AA of CEA, 1944 and Sec 11AB of CEA, 1944. vi. Land, building, Plant and machinery or any other thing used in connection with manufacture, production, storage, removal or disposal of such goods should not be confiscated under the provisions of Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 Penalty under rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also proposed on other noticees. 2.8 Subsequently periodic show cause notices as detailed below were issued to the appellants, demanding duty short paid by them. S No SCN No Date Amount Period 1 V/Adj (SCN) 15503/M VII/01 23.11.01 9324997 01.04.01 to 05.04.01 2 V/Adj (SCN) 15534/2001/MVII 27.12.01 9335519 06.04.01 to 10.04.01 3 V/Adj (SCN) 15535/2001/MVII 27.12.01 8706184 11.04.01 to 13.04.01 4 V/Adj (SCN) 15536/2001/MVII 27.12.01 7349010 14.04.01 to 16.04.01 5 V/Adj (SCN) 15537/2001/MVII 27.12.01 9353561 17.04.01 to 18.04.01 6 V/Adj (SCN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... V/Adj (SCN) 15324/Raigad/0304 06.02.04 203049616 Jan 03 to Mar 03 2.9 All the show cause notices have been adjudicated by the Commissioner as per the impugned order referred in para 1, supra. 2.10 Aggrieved by the impugned order of Commissioner, Appellants have filed these appeals. 3.1 In their appeal appellants have challenged the impugned order stating as follows:- i. Two separate registrations after Bifurcation of the unit granted on 26.04.2000, were revoked by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order in original dated 25.05.2001. Against the order revoking the two registration, appellants filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeal) vide his order in appeal dated 09.08.2001 in their favour holding that two registrations were correctly granted. Against the order of Commissioner (Appeal) revenue filed the appeal to CESTAT which was dismissed by tribunal vide its order as reported at [2004 (171) ELT 494 9T-Mum)]. The appeal filed by Revenue against the order of CESTAT bearing Central Excise Appeal No 39/2005 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 14.06.2013. Thus the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e revenue. In the said order the referred to para 6, wherein it has been held that two premises clearly constitute two totally separate factories which have been registered separately; • The contention that Appellant had facility of producing POY, and, therefore they are not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No 6/2000-CE also proceeds on the basis that there was one factory which has been negatived. • The contentions raised for holding that the factory was one in present case, are the same as were in the order Considered by the Commissioner (Appeal) and Tribunal earlier. Commissioner (Appeal) and Tribunal has after considering those contentions held that there were two separately registered factories. • As per the ground plan there was Separate Gate for each factory and they had made application to Joint Director Industrial Safety and Health on 20.04.2000 for modification of existing factory license. • Reliance placed on the "Explanatory Memorandum to Budget Changes 2000-01" and the decision of tribunal in case of Dhampur Sugar [2001 (129) ELT 73 (T-Del)] {the appeal filed by the revenue against the tribunal order was di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 89.85 per Kg • 1.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 Rs. 85.53 per kgs • 1.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 Rs. 81.51 per kgs. • Commissioner has determined the assessable value for the year 2001-02 by adopting highest rate of Rs. 225/- per kg from the sales policy of Appellant and thereafter added Rs. 40/- per kg towards special shed. Assessable value for year 2002-03 was also determined on similar lines. This method of determination of assessable value is not tenable, as the assumption made by the Commissioner that all the yarn was cleared on highest price with special shed is not correct. The average calculation made in the certificate of chartered accountant is based on the actual sale price which is correct and most reliable method for determining the assessable value. • Deductions on account of Central Sales Tax and Textiles Cess which are admissible have been disallowed without assigning any reason except that no documents were produced. • The benefit of cum duty price too should have been allowed to them after taking into account the excise duty payable @36.8% as has been clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-01, under heading "Man Made Filaments (Chapter 54), Para 3 stated, that this exemption was issued to provide concessional duty to independent texturizers who do not have facility to manufacture partially oriented yarn of polyester in their factory. • M/s KSF (Prop CEL) Appellants, requested for bifurcation of their existing plant into two parts by erecting a wall between two section and on 16.03.2000 requested for grant of two separate registrations in name of KSF (PYU) and other in name of KSF (POY). Accordingly on 26.04.2000 the existing registration was changed in the name of KSF (PYU) and one more registration given under name of KSF (POY). • Thus from 26.04.2000, KSF (PYU) started clearing the Texturized Yarn on payment of Central Excise Duty @ "Rs. 2.50 per kg + Additional Central Excise Duty @ 15%" by claiming the benefit of exemption at Sl No 114 of the said Notification. • Two registrations granted by the department on 26.04.2000 were revoked by the Deputy Commissioner Mahad Division as per his order No M-VII/MHD/09/2001 dated 25.05.2001 and restored the position as it existed prior to 26.04.2000. Appellant to the matter to Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany, situated on a common plot of land, goods manufactured by one unit forming input of the other unit and their removal from first unit shows as for "captive consumption", having common power and water connections, common payments for these facilities, common payments to workers, common delivery challans and common stock register and store keeper - Both units treatable as one `factory'. • Reliance is also placed on the decisions as follows, wherein it has been held in similar circumstances that there were not two but a single common factory. • Swadeshi Dyeing & Bleaching Mills (P) Ltd [1989 (41) ELT 224 (BOM)] • Mukerian Papers Ltd [2015 (330) ELT 533 (T-Del)] • The benefit under Notification No 6/2000_CE, was admissible to "independent texturizer who did not have the facility in his factory (including plant and machinery) for producing partially oriented yarn 9POY) of Polyesters. It is on record that M/s Century Enka Ltd Proprietor of M/s KSF(PYU) and M/s KSF (POY), apart from having facility to manufacture POY in their Mahad KSF (POY) plant, were having factories at Pune and Baruch were they were manufacturing POY. The term f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iii. Whether appellants have mis-declared, mis-stated to wrongly avail the benefit of exemption notification. iv. Whether interest on the demand made can be sustained. v. Whether penalties are imposable on appellant. vi. Whether penalties are imposable on four functionaries in the unit. 5.3 Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No 6/2000-CE dated 1.03.2000 is admissible to the appellant post 26.04.2000, the date from which they obtained two Central Excise Registrations by bifurcating their existing facility into two units. 5.3.1 Relevant excerpts from the Notification No 6/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000 are reproduced below: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts excisable goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below or specified in column (3) of the said Table read with the concerned List appended hereto, as the case may be, and falling within the Chapter, heading No. or sub-heading No. of the First Schedule to the Central Excise T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actured out of yarn falling under sub-heading No. 5402.42 of the First Schedule on which the appropriate duty of excise under the First Schedule, the special duty of excise leviable under the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, or as the case may be, the additional July leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, has already been paid; and (ii) no credit of duty paid has been taken under rule 57AB or rule 57AK of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.". 22. If,- (i) manufactured out of textured or draw-twisted yam, falling under Chapter 54 of the First Schedule on which the appropriate duty of excise under the First Schedule, the special duty of excise leviable under the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or as the case maybe, the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has already been paid; and (ii) no credit under rule 57AB or 57AK of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been availed in the process of dyeing, printing, bleaching or mercerising in the manufacture of dyed, printed, bleached or mercerised yam. 5.3.2 Plain reading of the S No 114 in the above notification, will show that the exem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r res-integra and should be decided following that order. In the said decision tribunal has stated:- "4 .The reference made to common sales tax registration is not relevant as under the sales tax provisions, only a single tax registration is required for each State even if there are separate factories. 5. As regards violation of Rules 43, 44 or 45 invoked in the show cause notice, we agree with the respondents that none of these Rules have been contravened. Rule 43 refers to notice to be given by manufacturer who intends to manufacture excisable goods for the first time. This rule is not attracted in the present case where the respondents have been carrying on manufacture of POY for a considerable period of time. It is also pertinent to note that from 26-4-2000 when a new registration certificate was granted for the POY unit, declarations under Rule 173B and Rule 173C as well as RT 12 returns had been accepted from both the units. As regards Rule 44 and Rule 45, they are also not applicable as it has not been shown that at any point of time, the respondents were directed by the Commissioner to comply with any directions as required under the above mentioned two Rules. 6.Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the factory could not be segregated and after the rejection of the application for separate registration, the Pune Unit was closed down in January, 2000. Besides, this is not a relevant aspect for the purpose of the issue involved in the present case. All the relevant aspects have been considered by the lower Appellate Authority in his order and it is therefore, not correct on the part of the Revenue to suggest that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded his finding on all the arguments put forth before him." From the entire order of tribunal reproduced it is evident that the issue for consideration before the tribunal in that decision was not the admissibility of the exemption claimed under notification No 6/2000-CE, but was limited to grant of twin registration to the bifurcated premises. The issue of admissibility to notification in our view if not examined by the tribunal in that decision, then it cannot be an authority on that issue. A three member bench Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of D Malpani [2019 (366) ELT 385 (SC)] held as follows: "19. In this case, the CESTAT decided against the assessee relying on Panchmukhi (supra). The case of Panchmukhi (supra) was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was held that as two units fall within the same premises within one boundary wall encircling the entire area of the land allotted to the appellants in the industrial area the appellant is entitled to obtain one consolidated licence for the manufacture of its goods within its factory complex as the object behind the grant of consolidated licence is that any person manufacturing different excisable goods within one factory area is entitled to obtain one licence instead of different licences for different commodities. The decisions relied upon by the learned SDR are not applicable as the facts are different. In Devidayal Electronics case the Bombay High Court was interpreting the term "Industrial Unit". In fact in the said case it was observed by the Bombay High Court that as the Notification uses the word "factory and it uses the word industrial unit, it must, therefore, be assumed that the words were intended to bear different meanings." Put differently the words "Industrial Unit" must mean something other than "factory". Similar was the situation in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills, 1998 (26) RLT (669). Accordingly we hold that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 is available to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontrol and overall control of M/s CEL remains unchanged even after 26.04.2000 ii. The CST registration is in the name of M/s CEL and is common to both the sites. iii. Income Tax PAN given to parent company is used by both KSF 9PUY) and KSF (POY) which was position prior to 26.04.2000 iv. Stock statement submitted to for the purposes of credit facility and obtaining loan is in the name of M/s CEL and is common both and after bifurcation. v. Centralized Purchasing, Centralized Marketing, Depot and consignment agents are common even after bifurcation. vi. MIDC confirmed that possession of the plot C-61, MIDC Mahad continues to be in the name of KSF (Pro CEL), Mahad, both before and after bifurcation. Both the units have common address. vii. Common electricity, water connection and common effluent treatment plant. viii. Common factory manager for both the units even after bifurcation without any change in salary. ix. Mess and Canteen facilities are common. x. Utilities such as compressed air, steam, air conditioning, intercom, firefighting system etc are common. xi. No change in staff strength aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the Tribunal have recorded their respective findings as quoted above, taking into consideration all relevant facts and relevant factors in the light of the above definition of factory, no exception can be taken to the same. The first contention of the appellants therefore fails." In our view the facts of case are more akin to the case of Grauer and Weil referred above and applying the ratio of the said decision we are of the view that though there are two registrations the factory continue to remain one. The same view has been expressed by the Bombay High Court in case of Swadeshi Dyeing and Bleaching Mills (P) Ltd [1989 (41) ELT 224 (Bom)] and tribunal in case of Mukerian Papers Ltd [2015 (330) ELT 533 (T-Del)]. 5.3.6 In case of Amaravathi S V Paper Mills Ltd [2010 (256) ELT 679 (SC)] Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the situation where there was no interdependence or interlinking of the production process. Thus Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "4.From a bare reading of the afore-extracted paragraph of the order passed by the Commissioner, which has been affirmed by the Tribunal, it is manifest that both the authorities below have found as a fact that both the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... texturizer is procuring the "partially oriented yarn" from any of his factory then he will not qualify to be an "independent texturizer". Thus the benefit of exemption cannot be admissible to him. 5.3.8 The principle of strict construction of an exemption notification has been time and again been emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Again emphasizing the same in case of Dilip Kumar & Co [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)], a five member bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the law as follows: "52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under - (1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. (2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. (3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case (supra) stands overruled." 5.3.9 Thus in view of our discussi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same are found to be conclusive evidence to consider that CEL were recovering the Central Excise duty@ 36.8% from the customers on sale of goods produced at KSF(PYU) at Mahad, and in actual they were paying Central Excise duty at specific rate of Rs. 2.87 per kg, and Rs. 10.35 per kg, for texturized flat yarn and dyed yarn respectively during the relevant period. 45.1 In this regard, I further place reliance on the statement dated 14.05.2001 recorded under section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944, of Shri R. S. Dhand, (Vice President Marketing) of M/s Century Enka Ltd, wherein, he inter-alia, admitted that as per their sales policy they were charging Central Excise duty @36.80%, but the actual payment made is @ Rs. 2.5 per kg + additional duty 15% in respect of goods cleared from the noticee company at Mahad. Thus, 'it clearly indicate that the price charged to customers during the relevant period was inclusive of duty @36.80% adv, where as they were paying Central Excise duty @ Rs. 2.5 per kg + 15% additional duty. Similar confessions have also been made by Shri G. M. Singhvi, President, Marketing of M/ s Century Enka Ltd, vide his statement dated 12.05.2001 recorded under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not to be deducted from "price", the said judgment has little application to the facts of the present case." 5.4.3 Hence for the determination of the correct assessable value and the quantum of duty short paid or evaded, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner. 5.5 Whether appellants have mis-declared, mis-stated to wrongly avail the benefit of exemption notification. 5.5.1 By bifurcating the existing unit, to claim the benefit of exemption notification, appellant have created a colourable instrument, a façade to evade the payment of legitimate central excise duty. 5.5.2 In case of McDowell & Company Ltd [1985 SCC (3) 230], a five member bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally discouraged the use of such colorable instruments for the purpose of tax evasion. Justice Rangnath Misra speaking for the majority stated as follows: "Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ask whether the provisions should be construed literally, or liberally, nor whether the transaction is not unreal and not prohibited by the statute, but whether the transaction is a device to avoid tax, and whether the transaction is such that the judicial process may accord its approval to it. A hint of this approach is to be found in the judgment of Desai, J. in Wood Polymer Ltd. v. Bengal Hotels Limited [40 Company Cases, 597] where the learned judge refused to accord sanction to the amalgamation of companies as it would lead to avoidance of tax. It is neither fair nor desirable to expect the legislature to intervene and take care of every device and scheme to avoid taxation. It is upto the Court to take stock to determine the nature of the new and sophisticated legal devices to avoid tax and consider whether the situation created by the devices could be related to the existing legislation with the aid of 'emerging' techniques of interpretation as was done in Ramsay, Burma Oil and Dawson, to expose the devices for what they really are and to refuse to give judicial benediction." 5.5.3 The letter filed for seeking twin registration and as recorded in the tribunal or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferent sites POY Chips, POY Textile (Processed Yarn) Yarn PFY. NFY (Processed yarn) Industrial Yarns Industrial Yarn and fabric Implementing the Product Group concept at Mahad site was becoming difficult since the very few number of High Speed Spinning (USS) Machines resulted in a limited capacity for producing POY. However, to ensure smooth changeover to Product Group concept, initially an exception was made so that the HSS machine and its product POY was continued to be managed by the Product Group - Textile Yarn. Due to difficulties, we have not been successful in achieving the basic objective of the Product Group concept in the true sense. As, by now the product groups are functioning smoothly, in order to conclude the changeover and to further consolidate the new management structure, it has now been decided to hand over the total control/management of the HSS machines at Mahad to the Product Group - POY. This will not only enable the Product Group to function more effectively but also give much needed focus to the two separate product groups at Mahad site. This will also in the long run, enable the two product groups to consolidate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VAT credit either on inputs or on capital goods. You are therefore requested to grant us the registration at an early date .We will be pleased to provide you any further information in this regard." 5.5.4 The contents of letter are self explanatory and clearly show that appellants have in garb of the "product management", sought to create a colorable instrument a façade in name of product management group for evading the payment of legitimate duty due. The intention of the appellant is also clear from the fact that they had been selling the said goods from their depots by charging the duty @ 36.8% ad valorem instead of the duty actually paid by them after bifurcation. They never declared the pricing mechanism to the department at the depot at the time of seeking an amendment in registration hence they had misstated the facts with the intention to evade payment of duty and hence in our view extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked against the appellants in the present order. Commissioner has in para 47.2 of his order held as follows: "47.2 Therefore, these acts of commission and omission on the part of all the Noticee have resulted in short payment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ween 10% to 36% is as determined by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time. There would be discretion, if at all the same is incorporated in such notification in the gazette by which rates of interest chargeable u/s. 11AB are declared. The second aspect would be whether there is any discretion not to charge the interest u/s. 11AB at all and we are afraid, language of Section 11AB is unambiguous. The person, who is liable to pay duty short levied/short paid/non-levied/unpaid etc., is liable to pay interest at the rate as may be determined by the Central Government from time to time. This is evident from the opening part of sub-section (1) of Section 11, which runs thus : "Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the person, who is liable to pay duty as determined under subsection (2) or has paid the duty under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, shall in addition to the duty be liable to pay interest at such rate ........" The terminal part in the quotation above, which is couched with the words "shall" and "be liable" clearly indicates that there is no option.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.7.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills {2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)] laid down the law as follows: "18. One cannot fail to notice that both the proviso to subsection 1 of Section 11A and Section 11AC use the same expressions : "....by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,...". In other words the conditions that would extend the normal period of one year to five years would also attract the imposition of penalty. It, therefore, follows that if the notice under Section 11A(1) states that the escaped duty was the result of any conscious and deliberate wrong doing and in the order passed under Section 11A(2) there is a legally tenable finding to that effect then the provision of Section 11AC would also get attracted. The converse of this, equally true, is that in the absence of such an allegation in the notice the period for which the escaped duty may be reclaimed would be confined to one year and in the absence of such a finding in the order passed under Section 11A(2) there would be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct group heads viz Shri G.M. Singhvi, Sr. President, Shri S.B. kamath, Sr. Vice President (P.G. Textile), Shri M.N. S. Rao, Sr. Vice President (POY Section) and he himself. Similarly, Shri S.B. Kamath, Sr. Vice President, vide his statement dated 15.03.2001 recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, also admitted that he was involved in obtaining separate registration for units to implement concept of product group management. This apart, I find that Shri G.M. Singhvi, Sr. Vice President and Shri RS. Dhand, vide their statements dated 12.05.200i and dated 14.05.2001 respectively admitted that they were charging collecting Central Excise duty @ 36.80% adv. From their customers where as they were actually paying duty to the Govt. Exchequer at specific rate of Rs. 2.87 per Kg. they have also admitted that they were involved in formulating a decision to bifurcate the unit based on the so called product group management concept. 50.2 Thus, from the above, I find that filing of application dated 16.03.2000 is a mere attempt to avail undue benefit of the notification 6/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000, despite of the knowledge that the composite unit still continue to exist an....