1998 (2) TMI 237 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Exemption under Notification No. 65/83 dated 1-3-1983
- Aggregate value of clearances exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs
- Requirement of filing a declaration with the Assistant Commissioner
- Rescission of the notification during the Financial Year 1986-87
- Time-barred demand for duty

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing evaporative coolers, sought exemption under Notification No. 65/83 dated 1-3-1983 for goods cleared up to 15 lakhs by 1st of April in any Financial Year, contingent on filing a declaration with the Assistant Commissioner. The Additional Collector found the aggregate clearances exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs without the necessary declaration. The appellants argued that the notification was rescinded on 23-4-1986, making the exemption inapplicable post-rescission. They contended that the value specified in the notification could not be combined with post-rescission clearances. The advocate highlighted that the declaration was filed in November 1985, asserting no annual filing requirement. Additionally, the assessment of RT 12 returns indicated that the demand for the period 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986, raised on 26-8-1988, was time-barred.

The Departmental Representative argued that the declaration should accompany classification lists annually for each financial year due to the exemption's nature. They emphasized that the absence of the declaration hindered the department from timely detection of irregularities. The Tribunal, comprising Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T), found the demand time-barred without delving into the case's merits. Reviewing the assessed RT 12 returns up to March 1987, the Tribunal noted that the disclosure of exemption claims was evident since 1986. The Tribunal inferred that the departmental officers assessing returns in February 1987 were aware of the exemption claim, precluding any suppression of facts. Consequently, the show cause notice issued on 26-8-1988 for duty demand from 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986 was deemed time-barred.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal solely on the basis of limitation, without delving into the case's substantive aspects.