Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2001 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2001 (7) TMI 773 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
- Whether the benefit of exemption from payment of Central Excise duty is available to printed wrapper under Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982.
- Validity of show cause notice and demand for duty.
- Competency of Superintendent to issue demand.
- Application of extended period of limitation.
- Imposition of penalty.

Issue 1: Benefit of Exemption
The main issue in this appeal was whether the benefit of exemption from Central Excise duty applied to printed wrappers under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. The Collector determined that the printed wrappers were not products of the printing industry, thus denying the exemption.

Issue 2: Validity of Show Cause Notice and Duty Demand
The Revenue issued a show cause notice demanding duty for the past five years and future clearances, challenging the classification of the product. The Superintendent issued addenda specifying the duty amounts. The Tribunal held that the notice adequately informed the Respondents, and the duty demand for the past six months was confirmed.

Issue 3: Competency of Superintendent
The Revenue argued that the Superintendent was competent to issue the notice in September 1985, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal agreed that the Superintendent had the authority to demand duty for the past six months.

Issue 4: Extended Period of Limitation
The Tribunal ruled that since there was no allegation of suppression or misdeclaration in the notice or addenda, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The demand for duty beyond the notice period was deemed improper.

Issue 5: Imposition of Penalty
Given that the issue primarily concerned the product's classification and the Collector had approved the exemption for the Respondents, no penalty was imposed in this case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the duty demand for the past six months, directing the Respondents to pay the specified amount. The appeal was disposed of without imposing any penalty due to the nature of the issue being related to product classification.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates