2002 (3) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The appellants received orders from the defence authorities for the supply of complete fabricated buildings. They received supply order from 203 Engineer Regiment vide supply order dated 23-4-88, for the supply of 8 pre-fabricated steel helicopter hangars of the size of 18 mts. x 16.5 mts. suitable to accommodate two 'Chhetah' Helicopters. Similarly, as per supply order dated 1-8-87, they received order for supply of 50 pre-fabricated tubular shelters with outside clading including roofing as per specification, detailed in that order itself. During the year 1985-86, they cleared excisable goods under Tariff item 68 of the then existing Tariff. They were not eligible for SSI exemption under notification No. 77/85 and as such, were liable to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. But this contention of the counsel cannot be accepted. From the record, it is quite evident that the appellants received supply orders from the defence authorities not for supplying steel structures but for the complete pre-fabricated buildings. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the goods supplied by them were pre-fabricated buildings and not steel structures, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that there had been any variation in the supply orders at any stage regarding supply of goods. Even the sale invoices produced by the appellants, for the year 85-86, showed that the goods supplied were pre-fabricated buildings/shelters, which were under the old tariff classifiable under item 68. It is only after the int....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat by an element of pre-fabricated, buildings should be supplied at the same time. Besides this, in the instant case, admittedly the orders received by the appellants from the defence authorities were for the supply of complete pre­fabricated buildings and supply was accordingly made by them as even not disputed by Shri D.K. Mittal, appellant-partner of the company. The fact that flooring was not supplied by the appellants is immaterial and could not lead to conclusion that pre-fabricated buildings were not supplied but only components or steel structures. The boughtout items were admittedly first received by the appellants at their factory premises with invoices in their own names and thereafter, they supplied to the defence authoriti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w. The suppression of material facts by the appellants is writ at large on the record. They, during the period when erstwhile tariff was in force, described in some invoices the goods as pre-fabricated buildings. But in other invoices as well as after enforcement of the new tariff, they deliberately made misdescription of the goods supplied to the defence authorities, in their classification lists as well as in the invoices by describing the same as steel structures and components. Therefore, following the ratio of law laid down in Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 429. In our view, extended period of limitation had been rightly invoked against the appellants. In this context, reference may also be made to National S....