2017 (9) TMI 2028 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption from excise duty as per N/N.76/86 dated 10.02.1986 and Board Circular No.76-73/6/2004 dated 28.01.2004 - manufacturing readymade garments accessories - period of 01.03.2002 to 15.03.2004 - Time limitation - HELD THAT - It appears that the appellant was found to have mis-declared the subject goods as handicrafts in E.R.-1. The process of manufacture was not disclosed, it came to the notice only when the officers have visited the factory premises. The appellant was also paying the duty suo-moto by considering that items as subject to duty. It is only after the visit of the factory, the demand was confirmed though the show cause notice was issued earlier. Due to the mis-declaration and non supply of the process, the notice is not time bared. On following the ratio laid down in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI VERSUS LOUIS SHOPPE 1995 (3) TMI 108 - SC ORDER where the major portion of the work was done by the machine too, hence, there are no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The appellant's appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.53/Kol-I/2007 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA. The appellant claimed exemption from excise duty for manufacturing handicraft items, but the tribunal upheld the duty demand as major work was done by machine. The tribunal found the appellant mis-declared goods as handicrafts and upheld the demand, ruling it was not time-barred. The appeal was dismissed based on the findings.