2008 (6) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the appeal of the revenue was partly allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The point of reference is as under : Whether wilfully non-furnishing of information and non-obtaining of Central Excise Licence will not constitute suppression of facts on the part of the party (respondent company) and consequently the demand w.e.f. 22-1-1991 should not be time barred? 4. According to the Revenue, brief facts of the case are that M/s. Khushal Fertilizers (P) Ltd., Roorkee, (present respondent) were engaged in the manufacturing of M.S. Conduit Pipes w.e.f. 29-3-1990 and are registered as an S.S.I. unit with the Directorate of Industries. During the course of investigations made by the Central Excise Officers of the Preventive Un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mption under Notification No. 202/88 because of which clearances of M.S. Conduit Pipes were effected by them without payment of any Central Excise duty thereof. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, another Director of the respondent company had stated that M.S. Conduit Pipes manufactured in his factory were out of flats/strips of thickness below 5 mm. He further stated that though units supplying raw materials to his factory mentioned their product as bars/flat bars but the goods supplied by them are basically flat rolled products. According to Revenue, there are contradictions in the statements of the two Directors of the respondent company. The intention behind this is to project the dutiable conduit pipes manufactured by them as exempted from excise duty u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artment is justified in imposing the penalty on the respondent. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the demand is barred by time as there is no suppression of the facts and activities carried out by the respondent company were well within the knowledge of the department. It is further contended that the respondent company vide their letter dated 22-1-1991, have already informed and requested the Central Excise Inspector for issuing certificate regarding exemption of their product from levy of duty, and as such, the department had acquired knowledge of said fact on receipt of said letter. It is further contended the Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988, provides full exemption from excise duty to the goods ....