2002 (1) TMI 534 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of excise duty on the activity of packing bulk detergent powder into small packs.
2. Barred by limitation - demand of duty for the period from 1-3-94 to 31-3-94.
3. Quantification of duty for the period from 1-4-94 to 31-10-94.
4. Adjustment of duty amount and fine by the adjudicating authority.

1. Levy of Excise Duty:
The appellants were engaged in packing bulk detergent powder under the brand name 'OK' of M/s. TOMCO. The activity was brought under the levy of excise duty with effect from 1-3-94. The appellants started paying duty on the product by debiting it from their Modvat Credit Account. However, a show cause notice was issued raising demands for duty for specific periods.

2. Barred by Limitation:
The demand of duty for the period from 1-3-94 to 31-3-94 was challenged as being barred by limitation. The appellants argued that the facts were disclosed to the Revenue authorities in a timely manner, and they believed they were eligible for an exemption till 31-3-94. The Tribunal held that the demand for duty for this period was indeed barred by limitation.

3. Quantification of Duty:
Regarding the demand of duty for the period from 1-4-94 to 31-10-94, the appellants accepted the liability but disputed the quantification. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for proper quantification, stating that discrepancies in duty quantification should be resolved at the original adjudicating authority level.

4. Adjustment of Duty and Fine:
There was a dispute over the adjustment of certain duty amounts and fines by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal clarified that an amount adjusted by the authority was towards a fine and not duty. A typographical error was noted in the order, and the redemption fine was reduced. The penalty imposed was upheld, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

The Tribunal's decision addressed the issues of excise duty levy, limitation on duty demands, quantification discrepancies, and adjustment of duty and fine amounts. The Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced the redemption fine, emphasizing the need for proper quantification and clarification on adjustments made by the adjudicating authority.