1997 (11) TMI 235 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of sacks made of HDPE woven fabrics.
2. Consideration of non-declaration of intermediate products in the classification list as suppression of facts.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The first issue in the case pertains to the classification of sacks made of HDPE woven fabrics. The appellants claimed that the sacks should be classified under Heading 48, while the Department argued for classification under 59.09. The appellants relied on a ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and contended that the Tribunal had consistently remanded similar matters to decide the classification issue. The appellants also highlighted that the emergence of intermediate products was indicated in the previous classification list, which was duly approved by the department. They argued that since there was no change in the description and the product was not dutiable as it was captively consumed, the non-inclusion of the intermediate product in the current classification list should not be considered suppression of facts.

2. The second issue revolved around whether the non-declaration of intermediate products in the classification list could be deemed as suppression of facts justifying the invocation of a larger period for assessment. The Revenue argued that the larger period was justified due to the absence of mention of intermediate products in the relevant classification list. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument. The Tribunal noted that the previous classification lists did indicate the emergence of intermediate products, which had been approved by the department. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal held that the failure to declare the intermediate product in the subsequent classification list did not amount to an intent to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the department was not justified in invoking the larger period for assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the concerned authority to calculate any demand for the specific period of six months and decided to remand the matter on merit for that period only. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants based on the above analysis and findings.