1992 (7) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Reference to High Court - Splints and veneers manufactured by assessee not included in declaration regarding excisable goods manufactured by them.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Excisable goods under Tariff Item 68 and whether it includes matches.
2. Allegations of suppression of material facts under Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act.
3. Examination of the Registration Certificate of a Small Scale Industries Unit.
4. Demand for the period 1984-85 in the context of captive consumption.

Analysis:

1. The first issue pertains to the interpretation of Excisable goods under Tariff Item 68 and whether it encompasses matches. The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to file a correct declaration regarding the excisable goods they manufactured, specifically Splints & Veneers, which required inclusion in the declaration. The Tribunal held that the wording of the notification left no ambiguity, and the failure to declare these goods constituted non-compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that no question of law arose for reference in this regard.

2. The second issue revolves around allegations of suppression of material facts under Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act. The applicants argued that since they maintained records of Splints and Veneers production, no suppression could be attributed to them. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the crux was whether the authorities were informed about all units manufacturing excisable goods, as required by the rules. Citing relevant Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants' failure to disclose all manufacturing activities precluded the application of the cited legal principles. Therefore, the question of law concerning suppression did not warrant a reference.

3. The third issue concerns the examination of the Registration Certificate of a Small Scale Industries Unit. The Tribunal noted that this issue overlapped with the declaration filing matter discussed earlier. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no new question of law arose in this context.

4. The final issue pertains to the demand for the period 1984-85 in the context of captive consumption. The applicants contended that the addendum should have been issued by the Collector post the amendment to Section 11A. However, the Tribunal clarified that the addendum did not constitute a fresh notice but merely indicated the duty payable, maintaining that the original show cause notice was legally issued by the competent authority. As the addendum did not introduce new elements and was a continuation of the initial notice, the Tribunal dismissed the Reference Application, deeming it legally untenable.