1986 (10) TMI 204 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 1145/CHC/84 dated 31-12-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi.
2. Allegations of clearing goods without payment of duty and penalty imposition.
3. Preliminary objections raised regarding the right to file the appeal.
4. Lower Appellate Authority's decision on the time-barred Show Cause Notice.
5. Contention regarding the invoking of the wrong rule in the Show Cause Notice.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1145/CHC/84 dated 31-12-1984, where the demand of duty was set aside by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi, and the personal penalty was reduced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 200/- only. The respondent firm was alleged to have cleared rolling bearings without payment of duty, leading to the imposition of a penalty and demand of duty.

2. The respondent firm received defective rolling bearings from customers for re-conditioning but sent fresh bearings from their stock without accounting for them or paying duty. The Adjudicating Authority demanded duty and imposed a penalty, which was challenged in the appeal. The lower Appellate Authority set aside the duty demand and reduced the penalty.

3. Preliminary objections were raised regarding the right to file the appeal, with the respondent arguing that the Collector of Central Excise was not an aggrieved party. The Tribunal ruled that the Collector had the right to file the appeal based on the authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

4. The lower Appellate Authority held that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred as it invoked a rule that was no longer in existence at the time of initiation of proceedings. The Authority also noted that the extended period of limitation under the new rule would not apply as the appellants had fulfilled their obligations under the Central Excise Acts/Rules.

5. The contention regarding the wrong rule invoked in the Show Cause Notice was addressed, with the Tribunal ruling that the action against the parties was not vitiated by this error. The Tribunal found that the case did not involve willful misstatement or suppression of facts as required under the old rule, and therefore, no interference with the lower Appellate Authority's decision was warranted.

6. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, upholding the decision of the lower Appellate Authority regarding the duty demand and penalty imposition.