9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Whether the benefit of Notification No. 135/89-C.E. is available for paper-based decorative laminated sheets and if the extended period of limitation for demanding duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is applicable. Analysis: The appeal filed by M/s. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd. raised the issue of eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 135/89-C.E. and the validity of demanding duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the demand of duty was time-barred, citing the issuance of the show cause notice beyond the 6-month period from the relevant date. They claimed that the information regarding the use of plastic as an input in manufacturing decorative laminated sheets was not suppressed, as it was clearly disclosed in their correspondence with the department. The appellant emphasized that the department had approved their classification list after due consideration. They also relied on legal precedents to support their argument that liability beyond 6 months requires positive evidence of suppression or deliberate withholding of information. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the appellant had concealed the use of plastic in the coating of the laminated sheets, which was evident from their own statements. They argued that the appellant's admission of not using plastic contradicted their claim of no suppression. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that before January 8, 1993, the appellants classified the laminated sheets under a specific sub-heading and paid duty accordingly. Upon claiming the benefit of the notification on January 8, 1993, they revised their classification list, clearly stating their intention to avail the concessional duty rate. The Commissioner confirmed that the classification list was approved by the competent authority. The Tribunal highlighted that the extended period of limitation was invoked based on the alleged non-disclosure of using plastic in the manufacturing process. However, it emphasized that the responsibility of approving the classification list correctly lies with the department, as seen in legal precedents. The Tribunal stressed that the approval process requires active decision-making by the officer, ensuring the accuracy of the information provided. As the classification list was revised with reasons provided and approved by the appropriate officer, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) could not be applied. Consequently, the demand for duty from January 8, 1993, to March 31, 1994, was deemed time-barred due to the delayed issuance of the show cause notice. The appeal was allowed solely on the basis of the time limit issue, without delving into the case's merits.
|
