2005 (12) TMI 400 - AT - Central Excise

Show cause notice - Demand letter of Superintendent - Demand - Limitation - Continuous proceedings

Summary

Issues: Time-barred demand for disputed duty liability.

Analysis:
The appellants did not contest the duty liability on merit but argued that the demand for the period from September 1995 to July 1997 was time-barred. The lower appellate authority found that the appellants had received moulds for manufacturing plastic parts from a specific company but failed to add the value of the moulds to determine the correct assessable value, resulting in the underpayment of duty. The authority noted that the appellants did not disclose the receipt of moulds to the department and ignored a demand letter dated 13-1-1998, which clearly outlined the omissions and requested payment for the period in question. The subsequent show cause notice issued on 11-8-2000 was considered part of continuous proceedings since the earlier demand letter. The authority concluded that the appellants' conduct indicated an attempt to evade duty, leading to the rejection of their contention that the demand was time-barred. The appellants were held liable to pay interest on the unpaid duty and penalties.

In light of the detailed findings by the lower appellate authority and considering the appellants' conduct in ignoring the earlier demand letter, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision that the demand for the disputed duty liability was not time-barred. The Tribunal emphasized the appellants' failure to disclose relevant information to the department and their evasion of duty payment. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the appellants were deemed liable to pay interest and penalties for the underpayment of duty.