2002 (8) TMI 765 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty.
2. Exemption under Notification No. 53/65.
3. Limitation period for demand.
4. Availability of Modvat credit.
5. Imposition of personal penalty.
6. Revenue's appeal regarding the dropped demand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Duty and Imposition of Penalty:
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta, confirmed a duty of Rs. 86,54,835.65 against the appellant and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 9,00,000 under Rule 173Q(1). The appellant's factory was inspected, and it was found that they were not paying duty on laminated jute fabrics. This led to a show cause notice and subsequent adjudication confirming the duty and imposing a penalty of Rs. 40,00,000.

2. Exemption under Notification No. 53/65:
The appellant argued that Notification No. 53/65, dated 20-3-65, granted exemption to laminated jute products from excise duty, provided duty was paid on unprocessed jute manufacturers. However, the Tribunal noted that the notification exempts laminated jute fabrics from duty only to the extent that it is in excess of the duty payable on unprocessed jute manufacturers. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that the notification provided full exemption to laminated jute products.

3. Limitation Period for Demand:
The Commissioner extended the benefit of limitation for the period 1993-94 but confirmed the demand for the rest of the period, citing doubts about the actual filing of declarations. The Tribunal upheld the extended period of limitation, noting that the declarations lacked signatures of the receiving Central Excise officers, making them doubtful.

4. Availability of Modvat Credit:
The appellant argued for the availability of Modvat credit on the duty paid on jute manufacturers used in the manufacture of laminated jute fabrics. However, the Tribunal rejected this plea, noting that it was not raised at any stage of the proceedings, including the original adjudication, first appeal, remand proceedings, or the current appeal.

5. Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The Tribunal found the imposition of a personal penalty to be justified and not excessive, given the confirmed duty demand against the appellant.

6. Revenue's Appeal Regarding the Dropped Demand:
The Revenue was aggrieved by the dropping of the demand for the period 1993-94. The Commissioner had observed that proper declarations were filed by the appellant during this period, indicating no suppression or misstatement. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's view and upheld the decision to drop the demand.

Conclusion:
Both the appeals filed by the appellant and the Revenue were rejected. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, the imposition of the personal penalty, and the decision to drop the demand for the period 1993-94 due to proper filing of declarations.