2006 (3) TMI 631 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether non-disclosure of brand name in a declaration amounts to misstatement and suppression of facts, justifying the application of an extended period for demand.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the department against the lower appellate authority's decision that the demand was time-barred despite being sustainable on merit. The main argument was that the respondents' failure to declare they were manufacturing branded video cassettes in a specific notification constituted misstatement and suppression, warranting the use of an extended period for demand.

The department argued that the non-disclosure of the brand name in the declaration under Notification 13/92-C.E. (N.T.) should be considered as misstatement and suppression of facts, justifying the application of the extended period for demand. However, the respondents relied on previous Tribunal decisions, such as Pioneer Electronics v. C.C.E., Coimbatore, Intercity Cable System (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi, and Queen Electrical Industries v. C.C.E., Madurai, which held that non-disclosure of the brand name does not amount to misstatement and suppression.

After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the Tribunal decisions cited, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the non-disclosure of the brand name cannot be equated to misstatement or suppression. They noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld a decision on appeal related to this issue. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision that the demand was time-barred and rejected the department's appeal.

In summary, the judgment clarified that the non-disclosure of the brand name in a declaration did not constitute misstatement or suppression of facts, based on established Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision that the demand was time-barred.