TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (6) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are engaged in the manufacture of polyester fibre and tops. In the manufacture of fibre, they were using DMT and Mono Ethylene Glycol as principal raw materials. It appears that in the manufacture of polyester fibre, polyester waste is generated at various stages of manufacture. The appellants were mixing this waste alongwith waste purchased from the open market and subjecting the waste to manufacturing process, which they called 'recycling process', whereby they recovered DMT in a plant, which they called 'Waste recovery Plant'. The case of the Department is that such Ethylene glycol recovered as a bye-product during the recovery of DMT from polyester waste in the waste recovery plant, was excisable under Heading No. 2905.90 of the Tariff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1975. On point of time-barring aspect he urged that extended period of limitation udder Section 11-A was inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the Department was fully aware of the recovery of ethylene glycol in the appellants' waste recovery plant. In this connection he drew our attention to various letters addressed by the appellant company, an earlier adjudication Order dated 22-5-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector in which it was clearly mentioned that appellant was recovering ethylene glycol in its waste recovery plant and R.T. 5 form filed by the appellant showed that the appellant was utilising ethylene glycol obtained by it in its waste recovery plant. He said that the appellants' Unit was under the physical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Revenue, while countering, vehemently argued that demand raised by the Department was not barred by time. He submitted that entire history and background of the case are to be taken into consideration while computing the period of limitation. He said that product in question which was used for captive consumption was exempted from levy under Notification No. 118/75 which was in force upto 28-2-1986. This exemption was rescinded and it was chargeable to duty from 1-3-1986 by Notification No. 138/86. Subsequently, this exemption was restored by another Notification No. 134/87 from 4-5-1987. Accordingly the product was chargeable to duty for the relevant period i.e., 1-3-1986 to 3-5-1987. He said that letters addressed by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore -1987 (31) E.L.T. 95. 2. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin v. Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Udyogmandal -1987 (31) E.L.T. 292. 3. British India Corporation Ltd., Dhariwal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh -1986 (25) E.L.T. 727. Further he drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaishree Engineering Co., (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, -1989 (40) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.), wherein it was held that penalty was imposable if there was deliberate suppression or wrong statement. He submitted that in view of these decisions the ratio of the decision in the case of Chemphar Drugs is not applicable to the facts of the presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fact that Ethylene Glycol was generated during the recovery of DMT in the appellants' plant but it has proceeded to raise demand by invoking larger period under Section 11A for not filing classification list, price list etc. It is evident from the records that the factual position was known to the Department apart from letter correspondence and an earlier adjudication order passed by the Assistant Collector, and the appellants have filed statutory R.T.-5 returns in which it was clearly indicated that the product was generated during their production process. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that there was a deliberate suppression of facts by the appellants. We find that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of ....