2004 (1) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Anti-dumping duty on Vitamin C - Demand barred by limitation - Limitation - Suppression or misdeclaration - Whether interest can be levied and penalty imposed on the ground of evasion of anti-dumping duty - HELD THAT - The High Court held that the provisions relating to confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise Act were not applicable to additional excise duties as Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 contained no provisions for confiscation and penalty and Section 3(3) of the said Act merely adopted provisions of Central Excise Act relating to levy and collection including those relating to refund and exemption from duty. The decision of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (11) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT . The ld. Jt. CDR seeks to distinguish the above decision on the ground that the language of Section 9A(8) of the CTA is wider in scope and operation than Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. However, we do not agree. As per Section 9A(8) of the CTA, 1975, the provisions of the Customs Act relating to non-levy, short-levy, refunds and appeals have been borrowed for the purpose of chargeability of duty u/s 9A(8) viz. anti-dumping duty and the provisions of Customs Act relating to confiscation and penalty have not been borrowed. Therefore, the ratio of the Apex Court's decision in Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (11) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable to the present case and following the ratio thereof we set aside the interest and penalties. In the result, we set aside the duty demand as time-barred and set aside the interest and penalties and allow the appeals.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against demand of Anti-dumping duty, classification of imported goods, imposition of penalty, invocation of extended period of limitation, levy of interest and penalty on evasion of duty.

Classification of imported goods: The appellants accepted that the imported goods were Vitamin C Ascorbic Acid subject to anti-dumping duty. The plea raised was that the demand was time-barred and interest/penalty could not be sustained as not provided in the charging Section u/s 9A of CTA, 1975. Tribunal held that the goods were correctly declared and classification under a different heading did not amount to misdeclaration.

Time-barred duty demand: The duty demand was set aside as time-barred due to the correct declaration of goods and absence of misdeclaration. The Tribunal ruled that the goods were not misdeclared and hence confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act was set aside.

Levy of interest and penalty: Section 9A of CTA, 1975 allows for anti-dumping duty but does not incorporate provisions for interest and penalty. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that provisions of Customs Act relating to confiscation and penalty were not applicable to anti-dumping duty. Interest and penalties were set aside based on the legal interpretation of the relevant provisions.

Conclusion: The duty demand was deemed time-barred, interest and penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the correct declaration of goods and absence of misdeclaration.