2005 (10) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere also associated with the stock verification. A statement of stock of finished/semi-finished goods as on 31-3-2001 was submitted to the Department. The Department initiated proceedings against the appellants for demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 25,60,44,120/- under Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority passed the impugned order confirming a demand of Rs. 8,71,14,393/- under Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants strongly challenge the findings of the adjudicating authority. 3. Shri M. S Nagaraja, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K. S. Bhatt, learned SDR for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that the demand covers a period of 13 years from 31-3-1998 to 31-3-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lls v. CCE, Calcutta reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 242 (Tribunal). There is no allegation of suppression of facts, fraud, etc., to involve longer period. 4. The learned SDR reiterated Order-in-Original. 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The demand has been issued under Rule 223A covering a period of 13 years from 31-3-1998 to 31-3-2001. The Revenue has issued the show case notice on the belief that Section 11A is not applicable for demands made under Rule 223A. The Department's view is not correct in terms of the judicial pronouncements cited by the appellants. There is no allegation that the appellants have removed goods in clandestine manner. Moreover, the stock taking was done by the appellants themselves. T....