1999 (5) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty on exported goods differing from goods cleared by the appellant.
2. Application of Section 11A for duty recovery on exported goods.
3. Misc. application for admission of additional evidence regarding audit objection.
4. Time-barring of the demands based on limitation.
5. Allegations of suppression of facts and misstatement of goods description.

Analysis:

1. The case revolved around the discrepancy noted by the department between the goods cleared by the appellant for export and the goods actually exported after machining by the merchant exporter. The appellant argued that the description of goods in the H-forms submitted for export clearly stated "automobile spare parts," which was accepted by the department as proof of export. The department contended that the goods exported were different from those cleared, justifying the duty demand.

2. The appellant invoked Section 11A, claiming that duty recovery provisions did not apply to exported goods. The appellant denied any suppression of facts and argued that the extended period for duty recovery should not be invoked due to the submission of accurate H-forms detailing the goods as automobile spare parts, as accepted by the department.

3. A miscellaneous application was filed to introduce additional evidence regarding an audit objection that was subsequently dropped, indicating that the duty demand should be dismissed. The application was allowed after considering the submissions of both parties.

4. The issue of limitation was crucial, with the appellant asserting that the demands were time-barred due to no intentional misstatement or suppression of information. The appellant maintained that the description of goods in the submitted forms accurately reflected the exported goods as automobile spare parts, thus challenging the department's claim of suppression.

5. The Tribunal examined the evidence, particularly the H-forms from the Sales Tax Department showing the goods as automobile spare parts, in line with relevant trade notices. Conclusively, the Tribunal held that there was no suppression or misstatement, as the H-forms served as valid proof of export. Consequently, the demand was deemed time-barred, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with appropriate relief as per the law.