2002 (11) TMI 422 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Excise duty demand based on removal of scrapped capital goods without payment of duty, invocation of extended period under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, contention of wilful mis-declaration and suppression of facts, applicability of intention to evade duty, bona fide conduct of the appellant, removal of old machinery and scrap to Foundry Division, assessment of duty credit in Foundry Division, sustainability of duty demand and penalty, limitation period.

Analysis:

1. Excise Duty Demand and Extended Period:
The case involved an excise duty demand of over Rs. 33 lakhs against the appellant for the period April 1994 to December 1995, based on the removal of scrapped capital goods without payment of duty. The demand was raised under a show cause notice invoking the extended period permitted under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant contested the demand, arguing that the proviso to Section 11A applied only to cases of wilful mis-declaration and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. They maintained that the transactions were revenue neutral as any duty paid on the scrap could be utilized as input credit in their Foundry Division.

2. Allegation of Intent to Evade Duty:
The appellant emphasized that their conduct was bona fide, with proper documentation and accounting for the scrapped capital goods. They contended that the removal of old machinery and scrap was a routine necessity in manufacturing, and the scrap was sent to their Foundry Division for further use as inputs. The Central Excise authorities quantified the scrap from the appellant's own records, indicating transparency in the process. The appellant argued that the allegation of deliberate removal to evade duty was unsustainable given the revenue-neutral nature of the transactions.

3. Sustainability of Duty Demand and Penalty:
The appellate tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions regarding the bona fide nature of their actions. The removal of scrap to the Foundry Division for recycling, where duty paid could be utilized as credit, demonstrated the lack of intent to evade duty. Consequently, the tribunal held that the demand was hit by limitation and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A was not applicable. As the duty demand was deemed unsustainable, the question of imposing a penalty did not arise, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

4. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed the excise duty demand on removed scrapped capital goods, the applicability of the extended period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, and the crucial aspect of intent to evade duty. The analysis highlighted the appellant's bona fide conduct, proper accounting practices, and the utilization of scrap in their Foundry Division, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the appellants based on the lack of sustainable grounds for the duty demand and penalty.