2005 (11) TMI 409 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand is time-barred due to misdeclaration of goods by the respondent.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the respondent, a manufacturer of cables, removed goods described as aluminium wire rods without paying duty under Rule 57(3) to another person for conversion into aluminium ingots and return. The Department argued that the goods should have been classified as scrap and cleared under Rule 57F(5) with duty payment. The Additional Commissioner upheld the demand using the proviso to Section 11(A) for a period from 11-11-1994 to 30-3-1995, issuing a show cause notice on 18-5-1996.

The Revenue alleged that the respondent misrepresented the goods as remnants of aluminium rods instead of scrap, leading to duty evasion. The respondent defended that the goods were correctly described as remnants arising during the manufacturing process of aluminium cables/wires. The Commissioner ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that there was no suppression as the goods were cleared under Rule 57F(3) with proper documentation and declarations, continuing until 30-3-1995.

The Revenue appealed, arguing that the demand was not time-barred and citing a previous Tribunal decision without providing specific reasons. The Commissioner's decision was upheld, emphasizing that there was no suppression of facts by the respondent. It was noted that even if duty had been paid, the transaction would have been revenue neutral as the respondent received the processed goods back from the job worker. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, affirming the Commissioner's ruling that the demand was time-barred due to the absence of suppression and the neutral revenue impact of duty payment.