2012 (8) TMI 26 - AT - Central Excise

Limitation - demand was confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 16/97 Held that - Demand is for the period from 30.9.1997 to 1.1.1998 and the show-cause notice was issued on 5.5.1998 by invoking the extended period of limitation on ground of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty - Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the contention raised by the appellant on the issue of limitation - matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals)

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of duty along with interest
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules
- Denial of benefit of Notification No. 16/97-CE dated 1.4.1997
- Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 16/97
- Time bar on the demand for the normal period
- Availing cum-duty benefit
- Issue of limitation and cum-duty price

Confirmation of Demand of Duty along with Interest and Penalty:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand of duty and interest, along with the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The demand was upheld after denying the benefit of Notification No. 16/97-CE dated 1.4.1997. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand by invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, alleging that the appellant suppressed material evidence to evade duty payment.

Entitlement to Benefit of SSI Exemption Notification:
The dispute revolves around whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 16/97. The notification exempts small-scale manufacturers from duty payment, provided the goods are not associated with the brand name of another person, whether registered or not. The appellant purchased a unit manufacturing ceramic tiles and continued production with the same brand name, leading to the denial of the SSI exemption benefit.

Time Bar on Demand and Cum-Duty Benefit:
The appellant argued that part of the demand was time-barred as they informed the Revenue about the unit purchase and filed necessary declarations before production commenced. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address this contention. Additionally, the appellant claimed entitlement to cum-duty benefit if the demand was confirmed.

Issue of Limitation and Cum-Duty Price:
The demand was for a specific period, and a show-cause notice was issued later invoking the extended period of limitation for suppression with intent to evade duty payment. The appellant's contentions regarding informing the Revenue and filing declarations were not addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals), necessitating reconsideration of the limitation issue. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on limitation and cum-duty price, allowing the appeal by way of remand.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai.