2011 (3) TMI 744 - HC - Central Excise

Limitation - The respondent firm has accepted the classification of the goods as done under the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - The respondent firm sent the intimation on 28-7-1992 to the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise with a view to bring to the notice of the Revenue about the nature of activities in connection with two products i.e. ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED - In the said intimation it was stated that the trading activity was carried out in Plot No. 31, Phase II, IDA, Pashamylaram - It was also stated that the respondent firm is repacking the bulk goods into smaller pack and sold them with their brand name. It was specifically contended that repacking the bulk goods into smaller packs did not amount to manufacture in relation to any of the Chapter of Excise Tariff and that it is a trading activity and did not amount to manufacture - The Revenue authorities did not take any steps against the respondent firm pursuant to the intimation dated 28-7-1992 - It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the intimation, the Deputy Commissioner had made an order on 3-2-1998 (41/98) in respect of one of the items covered thereunder and held that there was no suppression of facts as the respondent firm has already brought the matter to the notice of the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector - Further it is to be seen that the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector at the relevant time was the competent officer and as such the Revenue cannot disown the communication dated 28-7-1992 - the show cause notice dated 29-3-2000 was time-barred and it was rightly set-aside by the Tribunal - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Time-barred show cause notice regarding repacking of chemicals without payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise against the Tribunal's order setting aside a show cause notice issued to a firm for repacking chemicals without payment of duty, stating it was time-barred.

2. The respondent firm repacked chemicals without duty payment, leading to a show cause notice for duty evasion. The firm argued the notice was time-barred, citing prior intimation to the Assistant Collector about their activities. The Joint Commissioner imposed duty, penalty, and interest, which was reduced on appeal.

3. The respondent firm appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the rejection of the time-barred contention. The Tribunal held the show cause notice was indeed time-barred, setting it aside. The appellant contended that the intimation sent earlier did not cover the specific premises where repacking occurred.

4. The Court reviewed all orders and observed that the firm had informed the Assistant Collector about their activities, including repacking, at the relevant premises. The Revenue took no action based on this intimation, and a prior order also acknowledged no suppression of facts. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the time-barred notice was upheld.

5. The Court concluded that the show cause notice was time-barred and properly set aside by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The communication from the firm to the Assistant Collector adequately informed the Revenue, and the show cause notice was rightly deemed invalid.

6. Therefore, based on the facts and legal arguments presented, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the time-barred show cause notice related to the repacking of chemicals without payment of duty.