2018 (8) TMI 90 - AT - Central Excise

Time Limitation - non-speaking order - levy of duty on printed plastic stickers - Held that - Though the appellant have placed various correspondences to show that there is no suppression of fact but instead of dealing with those material, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) conveniently ignored the same and concurred with the adjudicating authority - the Ld. Commissioner has not passed a speaking order - the matter remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to re-consider the issue on limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand for excise duty, interest, and penalties on the appellant company and personal penalty on the director is sustainable?
2. Whether the demand for the longer period is valid due to suppression of facts?
3. Whether the appellant's belief based on previous judgments justifies non-payment of excise duty?
4. Whether the Ld. Commissioner's decision on limitation is appropriate?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the appellant company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Printed Paper Label and Printed Film Labels, which were classified under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was accused of evading Central Excise duty by misclassifying Printed Film Labels as printed plastic stickers to avoid duty payment. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal). The appellant did not contest the duty levy but raised concerns about the limitation period and penalties, arguing lack of malafide intention. The Ld. Counsel cited various judgments to support their case against the penalties.

Issue 2:
Regarding the demand for the longer period due to suppression of facts, the appellant claimed they had corresponded with the department, declaring their belief that the printed plastic stickers were not liable for duty based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Ld. Deputy Commissioner argued that the appellant suppressed facts by declaring the manufacture of printed paper labels post-duty imposition on plastic labels, justifying the extended period for demand. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Commissioner's decision did not adequately address the appellant's defense on the limitation issue, leading to a remand for reconsideration.

Issue 3:
The appellant's belief, based on previous judgments and correspondence with the department, that the printed plastic stickers were not dutiable was a key argument in defense against the demand for excise duty. The appellant contended that their actions were under a bonafide belief following legal precedents, which should absolve them from penalties and personal liability. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submissions but focused on the procedural aspect of limitation for reevaluation.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner's decision lacked a detailed analysis of the limitation issue, prompting a remand for further consideration. While the Tribunal upheld the levy of duty, it emphasized the necessity for a comprehensive review of the limitation aspect by the Ld. Commissioner. The decision highlighted the importance of addressing all relevant materials and arguments in reaching a conclusion on the limitation period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration specifically on the limitation issue, while maintaining the levy of duty.