2008 (10) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Differential duty demand for re-assessment of goods - we find that in as much as admittedly, it was the appellants who approached their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, seeking their opinion on the point of excisability of the casting mould and the duty so paid by them voluntarily - As such, duty paid was admittedly available as credit and was actually availed as credit by their sister unit we find that the entire situation is Revenue neutral and confirmation of demand of duty against the appellant is not called for. Further, we are of the view that the appeal is to be allowed on the point of limitation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability on casting moulds manufactured by the appellant.
2. Correct assessable value of the moulds for duty payment.
3. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
4. Time limitation for issuing show cause notice by the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing glass bottles and vials, sought clarification from Central Excise authorities regarding the dutiability of casting moulds they manufactured and used in their own unit. They voluntarily paid duty on the moulds based on the advice received. The duty paid was availed as credit by their sister unit. The Tribunal noted that the duty paid was available as credit and the situation was revenue neutral, as the sister unit could have availed a higher modvat credit if the appellants had paid the higher duty now demanded. Therefore, the confirmation of the demand of duty against the appellant was deemed unnecessary.

2. Subsequently, the Revenue issued a show cause notice alleging that the assessable value of the moulds was higher than what the appellant had declared, resulting in a differential duty demand. The Tribunal observed that the duty payment and the assessable value were known to the Revenue since the payment in 2000. The show cause notice raising the differential duty was issued in 2002, within the normal period of limitation. However, the Tribunal held that since the facts were already known to the department, the appeal was to be allowed on the grounds of limitation.

3. The authorities below had adjudicated the demand of duty against the appellant and imposed a penalty. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances of the case, set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal on the basis of limitation and revenue neutrality. The penalty issue was not specifically addressed in the judgment, but the decision to set aside the order implied that the penalty was also overturned along with the demand of duty.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds of limitation and revenue neutrality, setting aside the demand of duty and penalty imposed on the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely action by the Revenue in raising disputes over assessable values and the availability of credits in excise matters.