1992 (11) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred demand of duty confirmed by Assistant Collector
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 83/83-C.E.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 48/77 C. Ex. regarding physician's samples
4. Appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) on time-barred demand

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, challenging the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, which deemed the demand of Rs. 445.75, confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division F-I, as time-barred. The respondents failed to appear at the hearing and instead sent a letter claiming lack of understanding of the notice, despite having previously responded to a notice of hearing and expressed their stance. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte to hear the appeal.

The case revolved around a show cause notice issued to the respondents by the Range Superintendent, demanding duty on clearances of physician's samples in July and August 1983, alleging that they had exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs under Notification 83/83-C.E. The Assistant Collector's order highlighted the issue of eligibility for exemption under Notification 48/77 C. Ex., emphasizing that physician's samples should not be considered for computing the exempted quota due to the conditions specified in the notification.

Upon appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held that the demand issued on 11-4-1984 for clearances in July and August 1983 was time-barred under Section 11A. The Department contended that the determination of exceeding the exemption limit would occur after the financial year ending on 31st March 1984, making the demand within 11 days not time-barred. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, setting aside the earlier order and allowing the appeal of the Collector.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Collector, overturning the decision of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the time-barred demand. The judgment emphasized the interpretation of the relevant notifications and the timing of the demand in relation to the exemption limit, ultimately deciding in favor of the Revenue based on the eligibility criteria specified under the notifications.