1999 (8) TMI 918 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Tariff sub-heading 1902.90.
2. Demand of duty for a specific period.
3. Allegations of wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, and contravention of rules to evade duty payment.
4. Validity of show cause notice and question of limitation.
5. Provisional approval of classification list by the Competent Authority.

Classification of Goods:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of Maggi noodles under Tariff sub-heading 1902.90. The appellants initially paid duty under sub-heading 1902.20 but later switched to sub-heading 1902.10. The Tribunal's Final Order classified the goods under Tariff sub-heading 1902.90, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand.

Demand of Duty:
A show cause notice was issued for a specific period proposing a duty demand of Rs. 4,84,09,066/-. The Revenue invoked the extended period of limitation due to alleged suppression. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.25 Crores, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal.

Allegations of Mis-Statement and Suppression:
The appellants argued that there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts as they obtained a favorable appellate order and filed classification lists showing nil duty payment. They contended that the Revenue was aware of the situation, as evidenced by their actions, and thus the allegations were baseless.

Validity of Show Cause Notice and Limitation:
The Revenue argued that the show cause notice was valid for recovery of duty for six months preceding the date of the notice. The appellants had already paid duty, but the Tribunal agreed that duty for the specified period could be recovered if not already paid.

Provisional Approval of Classification List:
The Competent Authority provisionally approved the classification list subject to the decision of the Tribunal. The Revenue claimed this showed the list was approved provisionally, but the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating it was a question of fact not raised in the show cause notice or addressed in the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding that the Revenue was fully aware of the situation regarding the goods' manufacture and clearance. The allegations of wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts were deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal also clarified the recovery of duty for the specified period and dismissed the argument regarding the provisional approval of the classification list.