2002 (11) TMI 649 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to duty demand and penalty imposition based on reclassification of goods under Chapter 84 as parts of refrigerator; Allegation of suppression and misdeclaration leading to extended period of limitation invocation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to duty demand and penalty imposition
The appellant contested the order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 30,26,286/- and a penalty of a similar amount imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II. The goods in question, including articles of steel and aluminum, were supplied to a company for use in manufacturing refrigerators. The appellant classified these goods under specific sub-headings in the classification list and RT 12 Returns, along with providing descriptions matching the invoices. However, a show cause notice was issued proposing to reclassify the goods under Chapter 84 as parts of a refrigerator, invoking the extended period of limitation on grounds of suppression and misdeclaration.

Issue 2: Allegation of suppression and misdeclaration
The appellant argued that there was no suppression or misdeclaration, as all relevant details of the cleared goods were accurately declared in the classification list and RT 12 Returns. The appellant maintained that the department had not presented any evidence of suppression or misdeclaration beyond the provided documents. The department contended that the appellant did not declare that the goods were used in refrigerator manufacturing, leading to the proposal for reclassification. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had disclosed all material facts in the documents submitted, including specific product items and buyer details.

Judgment:
The Tribunal examined the declarations filed by the appellant and noted that the relevant details were disclosed, referencing a previous Tribunal decision emphasizing that non-declaration of product use does not constitute suppression or misstatement. It was determined that the appellant had not misdeclared or suppressed any material fact, and the department had access to all necessary information for further inquiry. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Revenue incorrectly invoked the extended period of limitation. As a result, the appeal was allowed solely on the grounds of limitation, without delving into other contentions raised by the appellant regarding the product classification as parts of a refrigerator. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was granted in favor of the appellant.