1996 (7) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of duty on galvanised wires of non-alloy steels falling under sub-heading No. 7217.90 for different periods.

Summary:
The appeals were filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur concerning the assessment of duty on galvanised wires of non-alloy steels. The issue involved was the assessment of duty on these wires for different periods. The demand for duty was raised for specific periods in the cases of different appellants. The contention was that there was no intention to evade duty, but rather a simple case of omission due to ignorance or oversight by both the assessees and the field officers. The appellants continued to clear their goods at a certain rate based on the tariff rate applicable at that time, which was later increased. The appellants argued that they were not aware of the change in the tariff rate as it was not widely publicized, and they had filed classification lists showing the rate of duty as per the previous tariff. The Department issued show cause notices much later, beyond the normal period of limitation, for not revising the classification lists after the tariff rate increase. The appellants contended that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department and that the imposition of penalty was unjustified.

The Tribunal observed that the revised classification lists had been filed by the appellants soon after the Budget of 1992, as required by Rule 173B. It was noted that if there was an error or omission, the Assistant Collector could have corrected it. Rule 173B(4) allowed for reassessment of the correct amount of duty payable. The responsibility of the assessee was to provide correct information for assessment, and it was the duty of officers to make necessary enquiries for a proper assessment. Rule 173Q could only be invoked in case of contravention with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellants demonstrated that the omission was due to a genuine misunderstanding about the applicable duty rate, supported by correspondence with relevant authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the Department failed to prove deliberate evasion of duty, and thus, only the normal period of limitation applied, rendering the demands time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, stating that there was no cause for the imposition of a penalty.