1998 (6) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Limitation on excise duty payment based on a letter written to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in 1986.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation on Excise Duty Payment:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing plastic items for military purposes, wrote a letter in 1986 seeking guidance on excise duty liability. The letter disclosed all manufacturing activities and sought instructions on excise duty obligations. The appellant claimed they received verbal assurance from the Superintendent that no excise duty was leviable on their products. However, no written response was received. The appellant also received orders from the Ministry of Defence stating no excise duty was applicable. The appellant argued that their letter demonstrated good faith and that the Department should have responded if there were doubts about duty liability. The Department contended that the appellant failed to file a declaration or obtain a license after crossing the exemption limit. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that the Department's failure to seek clarification on value and clearances indicated no mala fide intent on the appellant's part to evade duty. The show cause notice issued in 1993 for the periods 1987-88 to 1990-91 was held to be time-barred by six months, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal on the limitation issue.

2. Other Issues Raised:
The appellant also raised issues regarding classification and valuation, but the Tribunal did not delve into these matters as the appeal was allowed based on the limitation argument. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of the appellant's proactive approach in disclosing manufacturing activities and seeking guidance, which influenced the decision on the limitation aspect. The failure of the Department to respond to the appellant's letter was seen as a crucial factor in determining the limitation period for demanding excise duty. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of timely and clear communication between manufacturers and the excise authorities to avoid disputes and ensure compliance with excise regulations.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely communication and proactive engagement between manufacturers and excise authorities to clarify duty obligations and avoid disputes. The Tribunal's decision on the limitation issue emphasizes the significance of good faith efforts by manufacturers to seek guidance and the corresponding duty of excise authorities to provide timely responses to inquiries.