1999 (11) TMI 392 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Demand of duty on housings for capacitors under specific tariff classification
- Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellants to evade duty payment
- Imposition of penalty on the appellants
- Applicability of the extended period of limitation for raising demand

Analysis:
1. Demand of Duty on Capacitor Housings: The appeal was filed against an order demanding duty on housings for capacitors by classifying them under Heading 85.32 of the tariff for a specific period. The appellants did not dispute the classification of the product under the mentioned heading. However, the key contention was whether the duty demand was justified based on the facts of the case.

2. Allegation of Suppression of Facts: The central issue revolved around the allegation that the appellants suppressed the fact of production of capacitor housings with the intention to evade duty payment. The appellant's counsel argued that various correspondences between the Supdt. of Central Excise and the appellants demonstrated that the revenue was aware of the manufacturing activity related to capacitor housings. This awareness negated the claim of suppression by the appellants, thereby challenging the basis for the duty demand.

3. Imposition of Penalty: The order-in-original not only demanded duty but also imposed a penalty on the appellants. The argument put forth by the appellant's counsel regarding the revenue's awareness of the manufacturing activity was crucial in contesting the imposition of the penalty. The penalty imposition was likely linked to the alleged suppression of facts, which, if disproved, could impact the validity of the penalty.

4. Extended Period of Limitation: The invocation of the extended period of limitation for raising the demand of duty was a significant aspect of the case. The Revenue claimed that the extended period was justified due to the alleged suppression of facts by the appellants. However, the correspondence trail presented by the appellants indicated that the Revenue was informed about the manufacturing of capacitor housings, challenging the basis for invoking the extended limitation period.

5. Judgment: The Tribunal analyzed the correspondences between the Supdt. of Central Excise and the appellants, concluding that the Revenue was well aware of the manufacturing activity related to capacitor housings. As a result, the Tribunal held that the allegation of suppression of facts by the appellants was unfounded. Consequently, the extended period of limitation for raising the demand of duty was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order demanding duty and imposing a penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.