1988 (7) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged clearance of goods without approval of classification list and price list.
2. Exceeding the value limit for exemption under Notification No. 80/80.
3. Contravention of Central Excise rules regarding classification list and price list submission.
4. Discrepancy in the application of duty period.
5. Allegation of suppression or misstatement of facts.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged clearance of goods without approval of classification list and price list
The department issued a show cause notice to the manufacturers of printed cartons for allegedly clearing goods without approval of the classification list and price list. The respondents filed a classification list retrospectively, which was observed during verification to exceed the value limit for exemption under Notification No. 80/80. The Assistant Collector held that the exemption for printed cartons was not applicable for the relevant period.

Issue 2: Exceeding the value limit for exemption under Notification No. 80/80
The learned Collector (Appeals) confirmed that the aggregate value of clearances of excisable goods exceeded the limit for exemption under Notification No. 80/80. However, considering that the respondents declared the facts and did not misstate or suppress any information, the penalty was waived, and the duty demand was restricted to a six-month period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Issue 3: Contravention of Central Excise rules
The department argued that the respondents contravened various Central Excise rules by not submitting a fresh classification list, failing to provide a proper price list, and not following the prescribed procedures. It was contended that the respondents knowingly did not submit the correct classification list, making them liable to pay duty for the extended period as per Section 11A.

Issue 4: Discrepancy in the application of duty period
The department appealed against the order of the learned Collector (Appeals) seeking a longer duty period based on the alleged failure of the respondents to submit the correct classification list in time. The department claimed that the duty demand should not be restricted to six months as ordered by the Collector (Appeals).

Issue 5: Allegation of suppression or misstatement of facts
The respondents argued that they applied for a Central Excise license promptly after the Budget changes, declared pre-budget stocks, and regularly submitted production details through monthly returns. The department did not examine whether the respondents were entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal found that there was a procedural failure in submitting the classification list on time but concluded that the charge of suppression or misstatement of facts was unfounded due to the issuance of the Central Excise license and the detailed letter provided by the respondents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Collector (Appeals) to restrict the duty demand to a six-month period, dismissing the appeal of the department.