1997 (12) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Excisability and dutiability of wooden sleepers supplied to railways under Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff; Invocation of extended period of limitation; Challenge to excise duty demand; Compensation for duty demand; Correctness of duty calculation.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the excisability and dutiability of wooden sleepers supplied to railways by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranni (Kerala) under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants had not obtained an excise license, leading to a demand for central excise duty of Rs. 7,01,408.20 for the period 1984-85. The Collector of Central Excise, Cochin had adjudicated the matter, imposing duty but no penalty. The issue of invoking the extended period of limitation was raised by the appellant's Advocate, contesting the grounds for such invocation.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants had admitted to manufacturing and supplying wooden sleepers to the railways, leading to the duty demand based on information provided by the appellants. The Forest Department of the Government of Kerala was involved in manufacturing the sleepers, and the appellants were directed to obtain an excise license but failed to do so. The duty liability was determined based on information supplied by the appellants, supported by documents including letters from the Divisional Forest Officer.

Regarding the challenge to the correctness of duty calculation, the Tribunal found no material to substantiate the appellant's claim. The duty liability was calculated at Rs. 7,01,408.20 for the clearance of 45,964 sleepers, with a 10% ad valorem duty rate applicable under the Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty liability was admitted by the Divisional Forest Officer and upheld the view taken by the adjudicating authority.

Additionally, the appellant sought compensation from the Railway Board for the duty demand, especially for free supplies. However, the Tribunal deemed it immaterial whether the goods were supplied free or at a cost, as long as they were excisable and dutiable. The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and rejected it, affirming the decision of the adjudicating authority based on the facts and considerations presented during the proceedings.