2011 (6) TMI 480 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Notification No.89/95 - Time limitation - waste and scraps of plastics - it has been clearly mentioned by the appellants that they have availed the benefit of Notification No.89/95 on the waste and scrap of plastics arising during the course of manufacture of plastic goods, both the dutiable as well as final exempted products - when an allegation against the appellants is that they have wrongly availed the benefit of notification, the same cannot be said that they have any intention to evade duty - Appeal is disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No.89/95 to appellants for waste and scraps of plastics generated during the manufacture of both dutiable and non-dutiable final products.
2. Invocation of extended period of limitation for demands confirmed along with interest and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellants appealed against the order denying the benefit of Notification No.89/95 for waste and scraps of plastics generated during the manufacture of both dutiable and non-dutiable final products. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the notification and whether the appellants were entitled to the exemption. The show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation for demands confirmed, leading to the challenge before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal.

2. During the proceedings, the appellants admitted to not having a case on merits but argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The appellant's advocate pointed out the details in the show-cause notice, RT-12 returns, and declarations filed during the relevant period, suggesting that the extended period should not be invoked. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the appellants misled the department intentionally to evade duty, justifying the extended period of limitation.

3. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal examined the documents filed by the appellants and found that while they had availed the benefit of Notification No.89/95 for waste and scrap of plastics, there was no willful misstatement to evade duty. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of intention to evade duty, the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Consequently, demands beyond the normal period were dropped, and penalties under Section 11AC were deemed unsustainable. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to quantify the demands within the normal period, with the appellants instructed to pay applicable interest rates.

4. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that penalties under Section 11AC were dropped due to the absence of willful misstatement, and directed the adjudicating authority to reassess the demands within the normal period, with the appellants liable to pay interest on the demands.