2008 (6) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

SCN - held that wrong quotation of Sections does not vitiate the SCN since the quantum of duty has been correctly proposed in the SCN - even if the SCN mentions a wrong section, it will not effect adjudication - claim that the goods have been cleared to 100% EOU (deemed export) was false - Therefore, this portion of the demand is justified - Concessional rate of duty under notification No. 2/95 is allowable as unit was granted advance DTA permission by Development Commissioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper issuance of show cause notice under relevant sections.
2. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 2/95.
3. Time-barred demand.
4. Jurisdiction and quoting of correct sections in the show cause notice.
5. Treatment of duty demand for clearance to other 100% EOU as deemed exports.
6. Concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95.

Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the proper issuance of show cause notice under relevant sections. The appellant argued that the show cause notice was issued for recovery of customs duty under Section 72 read with Section 28(1), which was deemed improper and illegal. However, the demand was confirmed under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their argument, emphasizing the importance of correctly quoting the sections in the notice.

2. The issue of eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 2/95 was raised in the judgment. The appellant contended that they were entitled to the benefit of the notification based on certain decisions. The Tribunal considered these arguments and found merit in the appellant's claims, leading to a successful appeal in respect of the amount in question.

3. The judgment also addressed the time-barred demand raised by the appellant. The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred, which was a crucial point in the case. The Tribunal considered this argument in conjunction with other issues to arrive at a comprehensive decision.

4. The judgment discussed the jurisdiction and quoting of correct sections in the show cause notice. The Tribunal examined the discrepancy between the sections quoted in the notice and the sections under which the demand was confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized that the correctness of the demand was paramount, even if there was an error in quoting the specific sections in the notice.

5. Another issue involved the treatment of duty demand for clearance to other 100% EOU as deemed exports. The appellant sought to have this demand treated as deemed exports, but after a detailed investigation, the Tribunal found that the appellant's contentions were false, leading to the dismissal of this portion of the demand.

6. Lastly, the judgment addressed the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95. The appellant argued that they were entitled to a concessional rate of duty under the notification, and the Tribunal agreed with this claim, leading to a successful appeal in this regard. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority for reworking the duty payable and reconsidering the penalty in light of the allowed benefit under the notification.