2008 (6) TMI 211 - HC - Central Excise

Whether wilfully non-furnishing of information and non-obtaining of Central Excise Licence will not constitute suppression of facts on the part of the party (respondent company) and consequently the demand w.e.f. 22-1-1991 should not be time barred? Held that - Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the information given on 22-1-1991, to the Inspector of the Range with regard to which he had no jurisdiction in the matter, cannot be said to be information to the office of Assistant Collector, Central Excise. Therefore, the observation of CESTAT that no concealment was made by the assessee is erroneous in law. The point of reference stands answered accordingly, in favour of the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether non-furnishing of information and non-obtaining of Central Excise Licence constitute suppression of facts leading to time-barred demand.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under Section 35-G of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, against an order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The case involves a company engaged in manufacturing M.S. Conduit Pipes without obtaining a Central Excise licence or filing a declaration for exemption. The Revenue alleges that the company willfully concealed information to evade duty, as revealed during investigations and statements made by company directors. The company claimed exemption under Notification No. 202/88, but contradictions in statements raised suspicions of duty evasion. The Revenue argues that the company's actions were intentional to evade duty, justifying the penalty imposed.

The main contention revolves around the classification of raw material supplied to the company. The department collected duty on goods as flats, while the supplier claimed they were rectangular bars. Discrepancies in classification led to disputes and duty payment under protest. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the supplier, determining the goods as rectangular bars. The company started production before obtaining an SSI registration certificate and delayed seeking exemption certificate, failing to disclose grounds for exemption clearly. The company did not file the required declaration under Notification No. 11/88-C.E. (N.T.), essential for claiming exemption. The judgment emphasizes that the onus lies on the beneficiary to ensure compliance with exemption notifications.

The Court found that the information provided to the Inspector did not constitute disclosure to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, rendering CESTAT's observation of no concealment erroneous. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding the company liable for suppression of facts and justifying the time-barred demand.