1998 (3) TMI 414 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 74/93 for duty exemption.
2. Claiming benefits under different notifications.
3. Clubbing of clearances for multiple units.
4. Invokation of longer period for duty demand.
5. Scope of show cause notice.
6. Suppression and intention to evade payment of duty.
7. Limitation period for enforcing demand.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 74/93 for duty exemption. The appellant claimed entitlement under this notification, but the show cause notice alleged a different notification, leading to a discrepancy in the claims made by the appellant and the authorities.

2. The appellant had submitted classification lists during the relevant period, claiming benefits under Notification No. 175/86 or Notification No. 1/93, but not under Notification No. 74/93. The appellant argued that the authorities had wrongly considered a different notification than the one mentioned in the show cause notice, which exceeded the scope of the notice.

3. The issue of clubbing clearances for multiple units of the appellant arose. The Revenue contended that since the appellant had more than one unit, clubbing the clearances was necessary to determine the applicability of the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., which the Commissioner upheld.

4. The Revenue invoked a longer period for duty demand based on the appellant's failure to disclose having multiple units, alleging suppression. However, the appellant argued that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, especially considering the units were under the State Government's control.

5. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not adequately provide the appellant with an opportunity to rebut the allegations. As the appellant had not claimed benefits under Notification No. 74/93, the authorities exceeding the scope of the notice by considering a different notification was highlighted.

6. Considering the lack of suppression or intention to evade duty payment, the Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred and could only be enforced for a period of six months from the date of the show cause notice, attributing no undue benefit-seeking intention to the appellant due to the State Government funding.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that any consequential relief should be granted to the appellant in accordance with the law, based on the facts and circumstances of the case.