1994 (7) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) regarding classification of fabrics and concessional rate of duty.
2. Time-barred show cause notice for payment of differential duty.
3. Mis-declaration and suppression of facts in classification list.
4. Acceptance of test results from Bombay Textile Research Association.
5. Denial of natural justice regarding test report.
6. Contention of demand being time-barred.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant appealed against the order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) concerning the classification of fabrics and the eligibility for a concessional rate of duty. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal based on the discrepancy in the blend of fabrics declared by the appellant and the actual composition revealed by testing.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that the show cause notice for payment of differential duty was time-barred since the classification lists were approved finally. They contended that there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts to evade duty. The appellant cited relevant case law to support their argument, emphasizing the issue of provisional assessment.

Issue 3:
The appellant defended against mis-declaration and suppression of facts by highlighting that the department had approved the classification list. They referred to tribunal decisions to support their stance that once approved, the department must bear the consequences, and any demand raised beyond a specified period is time-barred.

Issue 4:
Regarding the acceptance of test results from the Bombay Textile Research Association, the appellant argued that the sample was not drawn in the presence of Central Excise Authorities, rendering the results unacceptable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of authorized sampling in disputes between parties.

Issue 5:
The appellant raised concerns about the denial of natural justice due to the non-receipt of the test report. The Tribunal noted that while the report was not forwarded, the results were communicated, ensuring no denial of natural justice on that ground.

Issue 6:
The main contention revolved around the demand being time-barred. The appellant argued that the classification list was finally approved, but the Tribunal found that it was provisional. Considering the mis-statement in fabric blend and intention to evade duty, the extended period for demand was deemed applicable, and the demand was not time-barred.

In conclusion, after considering all submissions and evidence, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal based on the findings related to mis-declaration, time-barred notice, and acceptance of test results. The judgment clarified the provisional nature of the classification list and the implications for the demand period, ultimately ruling in favor of the Collector (Appeals) decision.