1995 (9) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty for clearance of Carbon Paper Rolls.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q.
3. Validity of provisional SSI registration certificate.
4. Applicability of Notification No. 175/86 for exemption.
5. Repeated initiation of proceedings by the department.

Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty for clearance of Carbon Paper Rolls:
The appeal arose from an order confirming duty amount of Rs. 10,08,020.05 as Central Excise duty for clearance of Carbon Paper Rolls under sub-heading No. 4809.10 for the period 1989-90 and 1990-91. The Collector upheld the duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Rule 173Q based on the alleged violation of provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. Validity of provisional SSI registration certificate:
The appellants claimed eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 based on a provisional SSI certificate, which had expired on 7-11-1990. The Collector rejected their submissions, stating that the provisional certificate had become invalid since it was not renewed, and the party continued to avail of SSI benefits without a valid registration. The Collector held that only a permanent registration certificate would be valid for exemption under the Notification.

3. Applicability of Notification No. 175/86 for exemption:
The appellants argued that they were eligible for exemption under the Notification as they had availed of it during the preceding financial year against a provisional SSI certificate. However, the Collector found that the party had misstated facts regarding SSI registration and did not qualify for exemption due to non-renewal of the provisional certificate.

4. Repeated initiation of proceedings by the department:
The department initiated multiple proceedings against the appellants on the same allegations, causing undue hardship and harassment. The Tribunal criticized the department for failing to consider earlier dropped proceedings and for initiating proceedings multiple times without justification. The Tribunal found the repeated proceedings unjustified and set aside the impugned order, highlighting the department's unfair treatment and failure to apply proper judgment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to the unjustified repeated proceedings by the department. The demands for duty were considered time-barred, and the Tribunal directed a copy of the order to be marked to the Chairman of the Board to address the issue of harassment faced by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of avoiding unnecessary harassment and ensuring fair treatment in such cases.