2003 (9) TMI 473 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of final product under different tariff headings, imposition of personal penalty, applicability of Section 11A and Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, limitation period for demand of duty.

Classification of Final Product:
The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand against the appellant, alleging misclassification of the final product under a specific tariff heading. The appellant claimed a different classification, arguing that their classification lists were duly approved by the proper officer. The appellant contended that there was no suppression of facts or misstatement, thus challenging the imposition of a penalty and the demand for duty.

Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The appellant challenged the imposition of a personal penalty along with the duty demand. The appellant argued that since there was no suppression or misstatement on their part, the penalty should not have been imposed. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support the appellant's argument that the penalty was not justified under the circumstances.

Applicability of Section 11A and Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000:
The appellant contested the application of Section 11A and Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 to their case. The appellant argued that the show cause notice was issued in 1998, and the law prevalent at that time should apply. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing precedents and holding that the demand beyond the normal period of six months from the date of the show cause notice was barred by limitation. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 was not applicable in the absence of suppression or misstatement by the appellant.

Limitation Period for Demand of Duty:
The Tribunal found that the demand for duty beyond the period of six months from the date of the show cause notice was barred by limitation. The Commissioner's decision to confirm the demand for a period starting in January 1998, when the show cause notice was issued in December 1998, was deemed to be in violation of the limitation period. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants.