2000 (1) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Appeal against the Order demanding Central Excise Duty on paper for a specific period.
- Benefit of Notification No. 163/67 denied.
- Time limit specified in section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
- Composition of mechanical wood pulp in the paper.
- Allegations of suppression of facts and wilful misstatement.
- Invokation of extended period of limitation for duty demand.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order demanding Central Excise Duty on paper for a particular period, denying the benefit of Notification No. 163/67. The Appellants argued that the demand was time-barred as the Department was fully aware of the composition of the pulp used in manufacturing the paper. They contended that the Department had accepted their explanation regarding the use of cold soda pulp as a variation of mechanical wood pulp, making them eligible for the exemption under the Notification. The Appellants emphasized that there was no suppression of facts as the Department had been informed about the composition of the pulp since long. They relied on previous court decisions to support their argument.

2. The Respondent countered by stating that the Appellants had misdeclared the composition of the pulp used in the paper, specifically regarding the percentage of mechanical wood pulp. They argued that the Appellants had not disclosed the process of manufacture or the percentage of various types of pulp during the disputed period. The Respondent highlighted that the stock preparation reports, indicating the percentage of different grades of pulp, were provided to the Department after repeated reminders, suggesting a lack of full disclosure by the Appellants. They contended that the extended period of limitation was correctly applicable in this case.

3. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the benefit of Notification No. 163/67 was not available to the paper manufactured by the Appellants, as per a previous decision. The key issue to decide was whether the extended period of limitation should be invoked for the duty demand. The Tribunal clarified that for the extended period to apply, there should be fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of any provisions. It was noted that the Department had raised doubts about the availability of the Notification as early as 1978, but after receiving an explanation from the Appellants, no further queries were raised. The Tribunal observed that the Department had been aware of the composition of the pulp and had conducted tests to ascertain the percentage of mechanical wood pulp. Given the history of the exemption claim and the Department's actions, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was time-barred, as there was no evidence of wilful misdeclaration or suppression of facts.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, allowing the appeal on the grounds that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case. The decision was based on the understanding that the Appellants had not concealed any relevant information from the Department, and the exemption claim had been consistently approved over time. The Tribunal emphasized that the continuation of the exemption claim post the change in the Tariff could not be interpreted as an attempt to avoid duty payment. Consequently, the demand for Central Excise Duty was deemed time-barred, and the appeal was allowed on this basis.

← Previous Next →