1997 (10) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Runners and risers used in manufacture of steel castings entitled for benefit under Notification No. 152/77-C.E.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to denial of benefit under Notification No. 54/80-C.E. for use of runners and risers in manufacturing steel castings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Benefit of Notification No. 54/80-C.E.:
The appellants contested the denial of benefit under Notification No. 54/80-C.E. for using runners and risers in the production of steel castings. The Add. Collector had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 14,762, stating that the runners and risers were not eligible for the notification's benefit.

2. Legal Arguments:
The appellants argued that they had consistently filed the classification list, which had been approved. They contended that they believed in good faith that the use of runners and risers was entitled to the benefit under Notification 67/73-C.E. and later under Notification 152/77-C.E. They cited legal precedents to support their claim that the extended period for duty demand cannot be invoked in cases of mere suppression without intent to evade duty.

3. Departmental Stand:
The Department, represented by the ld. DR, reiterated its position and the reasoning put forth by the Addl. Collector in denying the benefit under the said notification.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
After careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments. Despite the Addl. Collector's findings on the use of runners and risers, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit under Notification 152/77-C.E., which had no conditions attached. The appellants had been paying duty at the prescribed rate and had not been penalized for any suppression. The Tribunal also noted the existence of a trade notice clarifying the benefit related to the use of internal scrap for manufacturing steel castings, reinforcing the appellants' bona fide belief in their entitlement.

5. Final Decision:
Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants. The cross objections filed by the Revenue were rejected, affirming the appellants' entitlement to the benefit under Notification 152/77-C.E.

This judgment highlights the importance of bona fide belief, consistent compliance with classification requirements, and the relevance of specific notifications in determining duty liabilities in excise matters.