1998 (7) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 19-7-1990 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Patna; Demand raised against old contracts under Section 11A; Payment of duty based on contract value at clearance date; Disputed demand of Rs. 2.31 crore; Imposition of penalty; Rate of duty calculation discrepancy; Provisional vs. final assessments; Time-bar implications; Lack of intention to evade duty.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the demand raised against old contracts under Section 11A, arguing that duty payment was based on contract value at clearance date. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as all necessary documents were submitted timely, and duty was paid upon finalization of contracts. A detailed breakdown of payments made prior to show cause notice and adjudication order was presented, totaling Rs. 10.80 crore. The appellant disputed the remaining demand of Rs. 2.31 crore, citing various reasons such as estimation basis, varying duty rates, and unaccepted proforma invoices.

The appellant emphasized that duty was paid promptly upon ascertainment, negating any intention to evade duty. The Department reiterated its views, but failed to justify the range of duty rates applied or clarify the provisional or final nature of assessments. The Tribunal noted the fluctuating duty rates from 1975 to 1986 and stressed the importance of using the rate applicable at the time of clearance. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity to determine whether assessments were provisional or final, especially in relation to the time-bar issue.

The Tribunal observed a lack of evidence supporting deliberate suppression or misstatement to evade duty. The appellant's assertion of providing contract copies and complying with approved classifications was unchallenged. The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial payments made by the appellant and focused on the disputed amount of Rs. 2.31 crore. The Department failed to address the appellant's arguments satisfactorily, leading the Tribunal to consider the appellant's offer to pay the recalculated amount as fair.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in line with the law and observations made. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough review based on correct duty calculations and relevant rates at the time of clearance.