2008 (2) TMI 41 - SC - Central Excise

Assessee, job worker, engaged in processing of fabrics concessional rate of duty paid on man made fabrics containing polyster below 70% misdeclaration of contents of the fabrics - Assessee had accepted the declaration filed by the merchant manufacturers who was supplying fabrics to him so assessee is not a party to mis-declaration - there is no legal requirement for processors to verify the correctness of declaration furnished by owners, extended period of limitation is not applicable

Summary

Issues:
Classification of fabrics for concessional rate of duty, Mis-declaration of fabric contents, Invocation of extended period of limitation, Imposition of penalty on assessee and merchant manufacturers, Applicability of extended period of limitation.

Classification of Fabrics for Concessional Rate of Duty:
The respondent-assessee, a job worker processing fabrics under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, filed classification lists declaring man-made fabrics containing polyester below 70%. The Assistant Collector approved these lists based on the assessee's statement. However, chemical tests later revealed that the fabrics had polyester content above 70%, attracting a higher duty rate. This discrepancy led to a show cause notice demanding differential duty and penalties.

Mis-declaration of Fabric Contents:
The assessee argued that they relied on declarations by merchant manufacturers and thus were not liable for mis-declaration. The adjudicating authority presumed the assessee's involvement in mis-declaration and imposed the demanded duty and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld this decision, leading the assessee to approach the Tribunal.

Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal, citing a previous case, noted that there was no evidence of the appellant's knowledge or deliberate intent to mis-declare fabric contents. As there was no legal obligation for processors to verify the accuracy of declarations by fabric owners, the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal's factual finding was considered final and not subject to interference.

Imposition of Penalty on Assessee and Merchant Manufacturers:
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on the assessee and merchant manufacturers for mis-declaration. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal indicates a confirmation of these penalties. The penalty on the assessee was Rs.1 lakh, while merchant manufacturers faced penalties of Rs.5,000 each.

Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal's ruling on the non-applicability of the extended period of limitation due to lack of evidence regarding deliberate mis-declaration by the appellant was upheld. The dismissal of the appeal without costs signifies the finality of the decision.