Paisa Fund Glass Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this is an appeal filed by m/s. paisa fund glass works against the impugned order passed by collector of central excise, pune.2. duty was demanded on the ground that the appellants have cleared the products refractoryware etc. at nil rate of duty even after crossing the exemption limit of rs. 30 lakhs in respect of more than one chapter heading. further it was alleged that the appellants have failed to furnish progressive totals of exempted clearances on the rt 12 returns and also on gate passes furnished by them from time to time and failed to discharge their responsibility to start paying central excise duty after crossing the limits of conditional exemption.3. when the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. however, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. accordingly we proceed to pass this order after hearing shri r.s. sangia, ld. jdr for the revenue. he reiterated the findings given by the lower authorities and submitted that since they have crossed the exemption limit, duty cast upon them to pay the duty and since they have failed to discharge their responsibility, department was justified in invoking the larger period.4. we find that show cause notice was issued on 19-10-1988 on the ground that they have crossed the exemption limit from 4-11-1986 and 16-10-1987 during the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88. it was the contention of the party that they have cleared their excisable goods and furnished the rt 12 returns for every month showing the quantity manufactured of each excisable goods, the quantity of each excisable [goods] cleared free of duty and on payment of duty. while the rt 12 returns were being finally approved, the proper officer under law was bound to find out whether the appellants have availed the exemption on the clearances correctly-or not. it was also submitted by them that the case was of a short payment not involving any mala fide intention and not of any clandestine removal or of avoidance or evasion of any duty of excise by mis-declaration, mis-statement or suppression of facts to invoke the larger period under section ha of the act. on going through the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that detailed figures were given in rt 12 returns from time to time and throughout the period it was exempted and since the proper officer has not verified but issued notice after two years we are of the view that demand was barred by time as it was rightly urged by the appellants in their memo of appeal. in the view we have taken, we hold that the demand was barred by time. accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and appeal is allowed accordingly.

Judgment:
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Paisa Fund Glass Works against the impugned order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Pune.

2. Duty was demanded on the ground that the appellants have cleared the products Refractoryware etc. at Nil rate of duty even after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs in respect of more than one chapter heading. Further it was alleged that the appellants have failed to furnish progressive totals of exempted clearances on the RT 12 returns and also on gate passes furnished by them from time to time and failed to discharge their responsibility to start paying Central Excise duty after crossing the limits of conditional exemption.

3. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. JDR for the Revenue. He reiterated the findings given by the lower authorities and submitted that since they have crossed the exemption limit, duty cast upon them to pay the duty and since they have failed to discharge their responsibility, department was justified in invoking the larger period.

4. We find that show cause notice was issued on 19-10-1988 on the ground that they have crossed the exemption limit from 4-11-1986 and 16-10-1987 during the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88. It was the contention of the party that they have cleared their excisable goods and furnished the RT 12 returns for every month showing the quantity manufactured of each excisable goods, the quantity of each excisable [goods] cleared free of duty and on payment of duty. While the RT 12 returns were being finally approved, the proper officer under law was bound to find out whether the appellants have availed the exemption on the clearances correctly-or not. It was also submitted by them that the case was of a short payment not involving any mala fide intention and not of any clandestine removal or of avoidance or evasion of any duty of excise by mis-declaration, mis-statement or suppression of facts to invoke the larger period under Section HA of the Act. On going through the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that detailed figures were given in RT 12 returns from time to time and throughout the period it was exempted and since the proper officer has not verified but issued notice after two years we are of the view that demand was barred by time as it was rightly urged by the appellants in their memo of appeal. In the view we have taken, we hold that the demand was barred by time. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and appeal is allowed accordingly.