1987 (7) TMI 442 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefits under Notification 119/75-CE.
2. Allegation of suppression of facts by the company.
3. Time-barred demand for duty payment.

Eligibility for benefits under Notification 119/75-CE:
The case involved the manufacturing of Zinc Calots by the respondents, who paid duty on conversion charges after availing duty exemption under Notification 119/75-CE. The dispute arose when the Revenue alleged that the product cleared differed from the goods given for job work and that the respondents suppressed materials. The Appellate Collector held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the notification, considering the negligible amount of job workers' raw material used. The Tribunal analyzed the issue, emphasizing that the benefit of the notification should be assessed based on the facts of each case. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the use of a negligible quantity of cadmium should not deny the benefit of the notification, as the requirements of Notification 119/75-CE were met.

Allegation of suppression of facts by the company:
The Revenue alleged suppression of facts by the company to avoid duty payment, but the Assistant Collector did not find any such suppression or impose a penalty. The Tribunal noted that the absence of a penalty indicated that the Assistant Collector was satisfied with the company's actions. One of the judges expressed reservations about the conclusions on job work under Notification 119/75-CE but emphasized that the demand was unenforceable due to being time-barred and lacking evidence of suppression. The judgment highlighted that without a penalty or specific findings of suppression, the demand could not be enforced.

Time-barred demand for duty payment:
The Tribunal found that the demand for duty payment was time-barred, as the show cause notice was issued beyond the statutory period. One judge emphasized that without evidence of suppression or penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector, the demand could not be enforced. The judgment concluded that there were no grounds to set aside the order, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

In summary, the judgment focused on the eligibility for duty exemption under Notification 119/75-CE, the absence of evidence supporting the allegation of suppression of facts, and the time-barred nature of the demand for duty payment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.