2008 (8) TMI 623 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of product propylene under Central Excise Tariff, Time-barred demand due to suppression of facts

Classification Issue Analysis:
The appellant contested the classification of propylene under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff, arguing for classification under sub-heading No. 2711.12. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in favor of the Revenue, stating that propylene falls under Chapter 29. Consequently, the product was classified under sub-heading No. 2901.90 of the Tariff.

Time-barred Demand Analysis:
Regarding the time-barred demand, the appellant claimed that the duty demand for the period April 1996 to March 2000 was invalid due to the notice being issued on 17-4-2001. The Revenue justified the extended limitation period based on alleged suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The appellant argued that they had informed the Revenue before commencing propylene production in 1996, requested classification under Heading No. 2711.12, and regularly filed declarations and returns under Chapter 27. The appellant's proactive communication and compliance led to the Tribunal concluding that the suppression allegation was unsustainable. Consequently, the demand was set aside, and the penalty was also waived.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi highlights the issues of classification and time-barred demand, providing insights into the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Tribunal in this case.