RADHEY KRISHNA PROCESS Vs. C.C.E.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K.Das, Member (J) -
(1.)THESE appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.
(2.)NONE appeared on behalf of the appellants. There is no application for adjournment on the record. It is seen that the matter was adjourned on earlier occasions and old one, and therefore I take up the appeals for hearing.
The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Shree Radhey Krishna Process Appellant No. 1 was carrying out processing of MMF falling under Chapter 54 and 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on job work basis. On 21.06.2004, the Central Excise Preventive Officers visited the factory premises and examined the records. It was found that the Appellant No. 1 had received fabrics from M/s. Radhey Textile Mills under the cover of Annexure II challans. During stock verification, the said Central Excise officers detected the excess/shortage of stock. A show cause notice dt. 06.06.2007 was issued proposing the demand of duty of Rs. 12,78,000.00 on clandestine clearance of processed fabrics to the quantity of 1672122 mtrs, along with interest and penalty. It has also proposed imposition of penalty on Shri Chandraprakash Lalchand Agarwal, Shri Premprakash Lalchand Agarwal, Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Radhey Krishna Textile Mills and Shri Sanjeev Premhans Agarwal of M/s. Radhey Krishna Textile Mills. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 12,78,000.00 along with interest and penalty of equal amount on Appellant No. 1 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on Shri Chandraprakash Lalchand Agarwal, Shri Premprakash Lalchand Agarwal, and Shri Sanjeev Premhans Agarwal Appellants No. 2, 3 and 4, under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the appellants.
(3.)LD . Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellants are not contesting the clandestine removal of the goods. The main contention of the appellants is that the demand is barred by limitation as investigation was completed on 04.12.2004, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 06.06.2007 which is beyond the normal period of limitation. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Surat -I v. Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. : 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.