1996 (7) TMI 275 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dutiability of certain items of plant and machinery claimed to be non-dutiable.
2. Invocation of extended period under Section 11A for demand beyond the statutory time limit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dutiability of plant and machinery
The appeal was against an order-in-original by the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, regarding the dutiability of certain plant and machinery items. The appellants claimed these items to be non-dutiable. The appellants initially filed a classification list declaring the goods as non-excisable. Subsequently, after a visit by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the filing of a revised classification list, the goods were cleared on gate passes. However, a show cause notice was issued later seeking to classify the goods as excisable. The goods were finally held to be excisable through an order of the Collector, which was challenged in the appeal.

Issue 2: Invocation of extended period under Section 11A
The main contention revolved around the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A for issuing the demand beyond the statutory time limit. The appellants argued that since two show cause notices were issued on identical grounds, one of which was withdrawn, there was no suppression, and hence, the extended period could not be invoked. The Tribunal agreed that in such circumstances, the extended period cannot be sustained. The show cause notice lacked specific details justifying the invocation of the extended period, as required by law. Citing precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the demand issued beyond the six-month period was time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on the limited question of time bar, entitling the appellants to any consequential relief as per the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for issuing demands and the necessity of providing specific grounds for invoking extended periods under Section 11A. The case serves as a reminder that procedural requirements must be met, and legal principles upheld, even in matters of excise duty classification disputes.