2000 (2) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Increase in excise duty on goods manufactured by the appellant.
2. Demand of differential duty for the extended period.
3. Allegation of mala fide intention by the appellant.
4. Correctness of duty statement in the appellant's letter.
5. Application of the extended period for duty demand.
6. Suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.
7. Filing of classification lists after the Budget.
8. Compliance with central excise rules regarding classification lists.
9. Barred demands prior to the filing of revised classification lists.
10. Imposition of penalty based on duty demand sustainability.

Analysis:

1. The appeal involved an increase in basic excise duty on goods manufactured by the appellant through the budgetary process. The appellant informed the excise authorities about the enhancement of special excise duty in a letter dated July 30, 1991, stating that there was no other change under the Budget except for the special excise duty increase.

2. The impugned order demanded differential duty from July 26, 1991, to July 31, 1992, invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1). It was alleged that the appellant had not stated the duty correctly in their letter and failed to pay the differential duty even after the mistake was identified.

3. During the hearing, it was argued that the appellant's statement in the letter regarding no change in duty other than special excise duty was incorrect. The adjudicating authority invoked the extended period for duty demand, emphasizing that the appellant had not filed classification lists after the Budget.

4. The appellant's letter of July 30, 1991, indicated the correct rate of duty payable according to their understanding post-Budget changes. The appellant's mistake was not detected by the Revenue Authorities, and both parties shared the error. The appellant sought amendment of approved classification lists and did not file fresh lists, ensuring clearances were made according to approved classifications.

5. The Supreme Court's Cotspun case precedent was cited, stating that demands of duty cannot be made for periods before the issue of a show cause notice if assessments align with approved classification lists. Revised classification lists were filed by the appellant on March 1, 1992, and demands prior to this date were deemed barred and set aside.

6. As the duty demand was not sustainable for the period before March 1, 1992, no penalty was imposed. The appeal was partly allowed, with the appellant directed to pay the duty demand from March 1, 1992, based on the above considerations.