Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CEGAT). The Tribunal on the application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) directed the petitioner company to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lacs out of a demand for duty of Rs. 86,54,835.69 and penalty of Rs. 9 lacs. The other order which has been challenged in the order dated July 6, 2001 filed by the petitioner-company for modification of the said order dated August 30, 2000 praying that it should not be required to make any pre-deposit.
(2.) The basic dispute between the petitioner-company and the Central Excise Authorities is whether duties were required to be paid on duty paid jute fabrics after lamination. According to the Central Excise authorities such duty was required to be paid after lamination, the quantum thereof being equal to the duty already paid on the jute fabrics and the case of the petitioner is that by reason of a Notification bearing No. 53/65-C.E., dated March 20, 1965 and a circular dated March 24, 1965 contemporaneously issued by the Central Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the Board). No further duty was payable on the duty paid jute fabrics after lamination.
(3.) The show cause notice dated March 31, 1994 demanding duty in respect of the period from April 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993 was served on the petitioner company on May 16, 1994. According to the petitioner, the normal period of limitation laid down in Section 11A(1) of the Act for issuing the show cause notice is six months. The notice sought to invoke the longer period of limitation laid down in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. The Commissioner, who readjudicated upon the matter on February 28, 2000 pursuant to an earlier remand by the Tribunal confirmed the demand only in respect of the period from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1993. The Commissioner has also justified the invocation of the longer period of limitation laid down in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner company did not inform the department about its activities nor complied with any Central Excise formality and the material facts came to be known to the Department only on the visit of the Central Excise Officers in August, 1993. The Commissioner also accepted the declaration filed by the petitioner on April 15, 1993 and dropped the demand in respect of the period from April 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993. However, learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 86,54,835.69 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 9 lacs on the appeals. Hence appeal was filed on the CEGAT inter alia challenging the said order passed by the learned Commissioner.;