1996 (4) TMI 263 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86 due to lack of valid registration certificate.
2. Validity of the changed name and its incorporation in registration certificate for claiming small scale exemption.
3. Application of limitation period under Section 11A for issuance of show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the denial of concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86 because the appellants allegedly did not possess a valid registration certificate from the Directorate of Small Scale Industries during the relevant period. The appellants argued that they had legally changed their company name, which was approved by the Registrar of Companies and the Directorate of Industries. Despite initially using the old name on some documents due to existing stock, the company's constitution and directors remained unchanged. The appellants contended that the benefit of small scale exemption should not be denied based on the name change. They cited relevant case law to support their position.

2. The Department argued that the registration certificate reflecting the effective date of the name change was obtained after the impugned order, thus not meeting the requirements of Notification No. 175/86. However, the Tribunal found that the necessary changes were made in the registration certificate, L-4 License, and RT 12 Returns to reflect the new name effectively from 1-9-1987. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely due to a change in the firm's name, especially when the change was duly approved and incorporated in the registration certificate.

3. Regarding the limitation period for issuing the show cause notice, the appellants argued that the name change was communicated to the Department, and necessary amendments were made in the documents. Assessments were finalized accordingly, indicating no suppression or misstatement. The Tribunal agreed that since the changed name was included in the L-4 License early on and returns were finalized, the Department could not claim suppression at a later stage. Consequently, the appeal succeeded, and the impugned order denying the concessional duty was set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the change in the company's name was duly approved and reflected in the relevant documents, entitling them to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal also rejected the Department's argument on the limitation period, finding no grounds for suppression or misstatement in the appellants' actions.