2008 (8) TMI 749 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption claim under Notification No. 329/77-C.E.
2. Classification list approval at a higher rate.
3. Validity of demand notices issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent.
4. Refund claim pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
5. Demand notice issued for the period from 23-4-1981 to 30-11-1984.
6. Time-barred nature of the demand.
7. Imposition of penalty.
8. Disposal of the refund application.

Analysis:

1. The Appellants were involved in the manufacture of glass and glassware and claimed exemption under Notification No. 329/77-C.E. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the exemption claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it. However, the Tribunal later held that the Appellants were not entitled to the exemption but directed that the demand for duty at higher rates could only be made from 23-4-1981.

2. The Assistant Commissioner approved the Classification list at a higher rate, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The duty at a higher rate was not to be raised for a period prior to 23-4-1981. The Appellants took the matter to higher courts, but the outcome was not reflected in the Appeal papers.

3. The jurisdictional Superintendent issued demand notices based on the Assistant Commissioner's order, which were challenged by the Appellants. The Tribunal set aside the demand notices, stating that the Assistant Collector's order on Classification was no longer valid, without considering that the said order was upheld by the Tribunal earlier.

4. The refund claim of the Appellants was taken to the High Court of Orissa, and it was directed to be re-decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund claim was pending, and the Tribunal advised the jurisdictional Commissioner to decide it urgently.

5. A demand notice was issued for the period from 23-4-1981 to 30-11-1984, leading to the present proceedings. The original authority confirmed the demand, imposed a penalty, and ordered payment of interest. The lower appellate authority set aside the demand for interest but confirmed the duty demand and penalty.

6. The Appellants argued that the demand was time-barred, but the Tribunal held that it was within time due to the disputed rate of duty and Classification. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but set aside the penalty, considering the prolonged dispute.

7. The Tribunal decided that the penalty was not justified given the circumstances of the case and the lengthy dispute process. Therefore, the penalty was set aside, and the duty demand was upheld.

8. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the duty demand and setting aside the penalty. The refund application pending before the jurisdictional Commissioner was advised to be disposed of urgently, and if decided in favor of the Appellants, they would need to pay the differential amount after adjusting with the demand amount.