2005 (9) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the 'additive mixture' processed by the three appellants herein was excisable and classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2404.49 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and that the Department was right in invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944?

Held that:- The appellants were maintaining Form-IV register as well stock register regarding receipt of kimam in their factories in UP and HP from their factories in Delhi. That, after the change in the entries in 1994, no show cause notice was ever issued. In the circumstances, although there was contravention of the provisions of Section 6 read with Rule 174 and although there was contravention in not obtaining registration of the units in Delhi, we are of the view that there was no intent to evade payment of duty.

"Additive mixture" (kimam) was excisable and classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2404.49/2404.40 of 1985 Tariff Act, as held in the case of Dharampal Satyapal (2005 (4) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), however, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the said Act. Accordingly, these civil appeals are partly allowed,