2000 (3) TMI 1035 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E.
2. Classification of raw materials used (bars vs. flats).
3. Invocation of the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
4. Alleged fraud, collusion, mis-statement, suppression of facts, and intent to evade duty.
5. Time-barred demands.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E.:
The core issue was whether the appellants' ERW pipes were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E., which provided a complete exemption to tubes and pipes of steel if manufactured from flats not exceeding 5mm in thickness. The impugned order held that the appellants were manufacturing ERW pipes from bars, not flats, thus disqualifying them from the exemption.

2. Classification of raw materials used (bars vs. flats):
The appellants contended that the raw materials used were flats, while the department asserted they were bars. The adjudication order referenced conflicting decisions from the Tribunal regarding this classification. The appellants cited various instances where the department itself was confused about whether the inputs were bars or flats, leading to inconsistent positions in different cases.

3. Invocation of the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act:
The demands pertained to the period from 1990 to 1994, with show cause notices issued in 1997, invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A. The proviso allows for a five-year period in cases involving fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with intent to evade duty.

4. Alleged fraud, collusion, mis-statement, suppression of facts, and intent to evade duty:
The appellants argued that the non-levy of duty was not due to any fraudulent activity or suppression of facts but rather due to the department's own confusion and conflicting decisions. The impugned order itself noted the absence of clear fraud or suppression, attributing the non-levy to malfeasance and misfeasance instead.

5. Time-barred demands:
The appellants maintained that the demands were time-barred as the department was aware of the facts and did not act within the six-month period prescribed by Section 11A. The adjudication order acknowledged that the appellants had filed writ petitions, and there were no stay orders from the High Court. Despite this, the department failed to issue timely notices, primarily due to its own conflicting views on the classification of the inputs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the non-levy of duty was due to the department's conflicting views on the classification of inputs and not due to any fraudulent activity or suppression of facts by the appellants. It was noted that the department's own records and the impugned order indicated this confusion. Consequently, the extended period for recovery of duty could not be invoked. The Tribunal held that the demands were time-barred, accepted the appellants' submissions regarding the time bar, and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals on this ground.