1998 (2) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore confirming duty payment and imposing penalty under proviso to Section 11A, regarding the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 230/86 for certain Industrial Flavour and Fragrance claimed to be manufactured without aid of power.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification wordings
The appellant argued that the wording differences between Notification No. 179/77 and No. 230/86 impact their applicability, citing relevant case law. They emphasized the limited use of power for testing and low electricity charges, asserting that the power usage did not significantly impact the manufacturing process. The removal of testing equipment further supported their claim. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred due to their genuine belief in the exemption and previous adjudication on similar facts.

Issue 2: Department's Argument
The department contended that the term "made" in Notification No. 230/86 should be interpreted in line with the broader definition of "manufacture" under Central Excise Act and Rules. They highlighted the appellant's resistance to compliance despite previous orders.

Judgment
The Tribunal applied the definition of "manufacture" to interpret the term "made" in Notification No. 230/86, considering processes integral to actual production. The sophisticated testing equipment usage was deemed necessary for maintaining product quality, falling within the scope of "made." The Tribunal held that power usage for handling raw materials was an integral part of the manufacturing process. Consequently, the exemption under Notification No. 230/86 was deemed inapplicable to the appellants.

Issue 3: Time Bar
The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the extended period under Section 11A proviso was not applicable. Previous show cause notices and orders on similar facts indicated the department's awareness of the issue, rendering the present notice time-barred. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression of facts to evade duty payment, leading to the appeal's success on the time bar issue.

Conclusion
The impugned order-in-original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on the grounds of time bar, providing consequential relief to the appellants.