2006 (2) TMI 312 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Excisability of Pre Stressed Concrete (PSC) girders manufactured for construction of bridges.
2. Invocation of extended period of limitation for duty demand.
3. Justification for confiscation, penalty, and interest.

Excisability of PSC Girders:
The judgment addresses the excisability of Pre Stressed Concrete (PSC) girders manufactured for bridge construction. Referring to the decisions of Larger Benches in previous cases, it is established that PSC girders are excisable products. The Tribunal holds that the girders meet the criteria of manufacture and marketability, thus confirming their excisability. Additionally, it is determined that these girders are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 59/90-CE, based on the precedent set by the Asian Techs Ltd. case.

Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The issue of invoking the extended period of limitation for duty demand is deliberated. The appellant argues against the longer period, citing the withdrawal of a previous show cause notice and questioning the justification for invoking the extended time limit. However, the Tribunal notes that the subsequent notice issued by the Commissioner within the statutory time limit of 5 years is valid. The judgment emphasizes the importance of disclosing manufacturing activities and dutiability to the authorities, highlighting the consequences of suppression of facts in excise matters. In this case, the failure to disclose manufacturing activities, obtain registration, and maintain excise records justifies the extended period of limitation for duty demand.

Confiscation, Penalty, and Interest:
Regarding confiscation, penalty, and interest, the Tribunal draws parallels with the Asian Techs Ltd. case, where confirmation of demand, imposition of penalty, and confiscation of goods were upheld. Consequently, in line with the decision in the Asian Techs Ltd. case, the Tribunal confirms the duty demand, confiscation, and penalty in the present case. However, the quantification of interest is pending, and the lower authority is directed to calculate it in accordance with the law after providing a fair opportunity for the appellants to address interest calculation. The appeal is ultimately disposed of based on the above terms.

This detailed analysis of the judgment comprehensively covers the excisability of PSC girders, the invocation of extended limitation for duty demand, and the justification for confiscation, penalty, and interest as addressed in the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai's decision.