2002 (5) TMI 138 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of products as ABS Resin under specific sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act, invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for demanding duty of Excise.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of products
The appeal questioned the classification of products by M/s. Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. under sub-heading 3903.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, contrary to the Commissioner's classification under sub-heading 3903.90. The Appellants argued that their products were correctly classified under sub-heading 3903.30, emphasizing the absence of dispute by the Department due to identical duty rates. They presented evidence of regular filings, approvals, and declarations supporting their classification, asserting compliance with rules. The Appellants contended that the Department's demand was time-barred under Section 11A(1) as no material facts were suppressed, referencing previous tribunal decisions supporting their stance.

Issue 2: Invocation of extended period of limitation
The Department alleged that the Appellants suppressed the fact of using additional materials in their products, justifying the demand for Central Excise duty under the extended period of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the demand, citing the proviso to Section 11A(1). However, the Appellants refuted the allegation, highlighting their detailed filings, including Modvat Declarations, which disclosed the use of additional materials like polycarbonate and alpha-methyl-styrene. The tribunal noted that the Appellants had not willfully concealed any facts to evade duty payment, as evidenced by their comprehensive declarations and communications regarding the use of various chemicals in manufacturing ABS Polymers. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, deeming the demand time-barred and setting it aside.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds of the demand being time-barred, negating the need to address the classification of the products under specific sub-headings. The cross-objection filed by the Revenue was also disposed of accordingly.