ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. There is a duty demand of Rs. 7,92,858/-. This is for the period 1998-99 to 2000-01. We have heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The facts leading to the duty demand are that the appellant is a manufacturer of packaging tubes which are used in packing cream etc. In some cases the tubes also contain printed art work. The value of such art work is being separately charged by the appellant and no duty was being paid. Duty demand is in regard to such art work. The contention of the appellant is that the charge for art work was also entered in the books of account of the assessee, and therefore, there was no suppression of facts and that the Revenue authorities could not have issued duty demand invoking the extended period. The Counsel has also referred to the audit certificate periodically signed by the Central Excise authorities.
3. There could not be any dispute about the includibility of art work. In that view of the matter, on merit, the appellant has no case. The appellant’s submission relating to the facts being known to the Revenue authorities also cannot find acceptance. It is clear from the audit certificate itself. The audit was in regard to excise documents like RG-1, Form- 4 register. It is well known that statutory audits by Central Excise authorities do not cover the private and other books of account of the appellant-assessee. In this situation, invoking of the extended period cannot be faulted. We find no reason to grant stay in regard to duty demand. The appellant is therefore, directed to deposit the duty amount of Rs. 7,92,858/- within eight weeks from today. Upon making the deposit of the duty amount, the requirement for pre-deposit of penalty shall stand waived. To report compliance on 26th July, 2005.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)