1997 (4) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in inputs brought in its Bollaram Unit. 2.Brief narration of the facts are that the petitioner has two Units, one of Chaknavadi and the other of Bollaram respectively referred to as Units 1 and 2. The petitioner addressed a letter to the Collector, Central Excise on 18th November, 1996, informing him the different types of raw materials (inputs) that are used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products and that all these raw materials are received and taken into account in Unit 2. All the requirements of raw materials at Unit 1 is met by Unit 2. Prior to 1-3-1986, no account in Form IV except an account for their own use was maintained by them in respect of the raw materials. The inputs were being transferred from Unit 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6-8-1989 and (b) 3-3-1986 to 14-5-1986 and from 15th May, 1986 to 17th November, 1986. A reply having been filed and the matter having been already brought to the notice of the authorities, the explanation was not accepted and the penalty and duty were levied. In appeal, the Collector upheld that the demands raised for the first period 1-12-1988 to 16-8-1989 but for the period 3rd March, 1986 to 14th May, 1986, they were barred by limitation. So far as the second period is concerned, the Collector held that the provision of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be put to use as there was no suppression of the fact practised by the petitioner, it having already brought to the notice of the respondents the fact of the removal of inp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Standing Counsel who has filed the counter-affidavit as also the additional counter-affidavit. The entire question involved relates to the appreciation as to the letter dated 18th November, 1986 whereby the petitioner had informed the authorities of the removals effected by it of the inputs from Unit 2 to Unit 1 and whether for such reason it could not be said that there was suppression practised by it. The Collector came to the conclusion that since not only the petitioner candidly stated about the practise adopted by it even before Modvat credit was availed of and also after it sought the permission of the Department to effect the transfers on their own challans, the Department also acknowledged such fact of their having been made aware o....