1999 (2) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty liability on punched paper dobby cards, Allegation of suppression of facts, Proper filing of classification list and price list, Non-filing of RT 12 returns, Justification for invoking extended period of limitation

Duty Liability on Punched Paper Dobby Cards:
The appeal concerned duty liability related to punched paper dobby cards purchased from the market by the appellants, cut to size, punched, and used captively on looms. The Additional Collector of Central Excise alleged in a show cause notice that the appellants had not filed the classification list, price list, and had cleared excisable goods without proper gate passes, amounting to suppression of facts. A demand of Rs. 629.64 was confirmed with a penalty of Rs. 200 imposed.

Allegation of Suppression of Facts:
The show cause notice accused the appellants of suppressing facts by not filing the classification list and price list at the proper time. The appellants argued that they believed their activity did not create a new product as they purchased duty paid dobby cards and only punched them. They claimed the activity was done under the Department's cognizance, with Range Superintendent and Inspector present on-site.

Proper Filing of Classification List and Price List:
The Departmental Representative contended that the appellants should have sought clarification on excisability if in doubt, as they removed goods for captive consumption without paying Central Excise duty. Referring to relevant case law and trade notices, it was argued that the appellants were responsible for bringing such goods to the authorities' notice.

Non-filing of RT 12 Returns:
The appellants failed to appear for the hearing, and as the matter was old, dating back to 1986-1987, it was proceeded with on merits. The Departmental Representative highlighted the importance of seeking clarification from the department and referenced previous tribunal decisions to support the allegation of suppression.

Justification for Invoking Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellants argued that receiving a show cause notice after filing an appeal on a previous decision was unjustified. They cited a tribunal decision stating that the extended period of limitation should not apply when contesting earlier demands. The Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation was not justified in this case, as the issue had been previously addressed by the department in 1988.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the original order solely on the ground of limitation, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the limitation issue. The appeal was allowed accordingly.