1989 (8) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission to take up additional ground in the appeal relating to limitation.
2. Appeal against the demand for duty and penalty upheld by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.
3. Admissibility of deductions of elements of costs by the appellants for determining exemption eligibility under Notification 176/77.
4. Inclusion of value of exported goods in calculating the exemption limit.
5. Barred by limitation due to lack of suppression of facts by the appellants.

Analysis:

1. The Misc. application sought permission to add a ground in the appeal concerning limitation. The consultant argued that demand for duty issued beyond six months is time-barred under Rule 173-J read with Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Senior Departmental Representative opposed the petition. The Tribunal allowed the addition of the ground as it pertained to a question of law.

2. The appeal contested the demand for duty of Rs. 1,28,824.23 upheld by the Central Board of Excise & Customs but set aside the penalty imposed by the Collector. The appellant's eligibility for exemption under Notification 176/77 was in question due to exceeding the total sales limit of Rs. 30 lakhs. Various deductions claimed by the appellants, including trade discounts and turnover bonuses, were scrutinized. The Collector and the Board's orders were upheld, rejecting the appellant's contentions on deductions and limitation.

3. The issue revolved around the admissibility of deductions claimed by the appellants for determining their exemption eligibility. The appellants sought deductions for various elements such as transport costs, packing costs, trade discounts, and turnover bonuses. The Collector found discrepancies in the appellant's claims as invoices did not specify the discounts or deductions granted, leading to the rejection of the deductions.

4. The inclusion of the value of exported goods in calculating the exemption limit was challenged by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that this was a factual issue raised for the first time in the second appeal and deemed it unnecessary to alter the decision based on the lack of satisfactory evidence regarding the availability of discounts and deductions claimed.

5. The argument of being time-barred due to the absence of suppression of facts by the appellants was dismissed. The show cause notice was issued for removal of excisable goods without payment of duty, not for short levy, and thus, the limitation defense was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the Central Board of Excise & Customs' decision, ultimately rejecting the appeal.