2000 (8) TMI 472 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for goods manufactured in the factory at Ramkola.
2. Time-barred demand of duty of excise.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availability of Exemption
The appeal raised the question of whether the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was applicable to goods manufactured in the factory at Ramkola. The appellant argued that as they were registered as a small scale unit with the Director of Industries, they were eligible for the exemption. They cited previous classification lists and registration certificates to support their claim. The advocate emphasized that no new registration was required for the Ramkola factory as the Lucknow factory was already registered. The appellant also pointed out that the show cause notice for demanding excise duty was issued beyond the statutory six-month period specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, without any allegation of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Issue 2: Time-barred Demand
The Department countered the appellant's arguments by stating that the plea regarding the sufficiency of the Lucknow factory's SSI registration was not raised earlier and could not be introduced at a later stage. They argued that every factory needed separate SSI registration and that the appellant had not produced the required registration certificate for the Ramkola factory. The Department contended that the extended period of limitation could be invoked due to misdeclaration by the appellant regarding SSI registration.

Judgment
The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that the appellant had indeed provided the Registration Certificate of the Lucknow factory to the Department before filing the classification list in 1989. As the Revenue did not challenge this submission and the certificate pertained to the Lucknow factory, the Tribunal held that there was no suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. Consequently, the demand for excise duty was deemed time-barred as the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The appeal was allowed on the basis of the time-limit issue, and the impugned order was set aside.