1987 (12) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of the demand raised for the differential duty.
3. Whether the demand was barred by time.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay of 9 days was condoned by the bench as the explanation provided by the appellant's consultant, who fell ill and could not prepare the appeal in time, was deemed sufficient by the tribunal.

2. The main issue revolved around the validity of the demand raised for the differential duty by the Department. The appellants were issued a notice regarding the reworking of assessable value and the demand for the differential amount due to charging buyers at a higher duty rate than paid by the appellants. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the appeal in question.

3. The tribunal focused on whether the demand was barred by time. The appellants argued that the show cause notice issued in June 1982 was time-barred as it related to the period of April and May 1980. The consultant contended that the Department was aware since 1977-78 that duty was collected from customers at a higher rate than paid, but this fact was not disclosed in the returns. The tribunal found that the demand should have been issued within the normal period of limitation, as the appellants could not be held guilty of suppression or wilful misstatement of facts based on previous judgments. Consequently, the show cause notice was held to be barred by time.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities due to the demand being time-barred.