1998 (9) TMI 364 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming demand and imposing penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 254/87 for exemption from additional duty.
- Allegations of excess excise duty collection leading to higher duty liability.
- Bar on invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Allegations of wilful suppression of material facts.
- Rounding off discrepancies in assessable values.
- Remand for verification of suppression of facts and limitation aspect.
- Penalty imposition under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original confirming a demand of Rs. 6,74,385.91 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing fabrics, availed exemption under Notification No. 254/87 based on fabric value per square meter, leading to duty payment on approved prices. Sales were on a linear meter basis, falling under specific slabs based on value per square meter.

2. Investigation revealed the appellant collected excess excise duty in some cases, potentially jumping duty slabs and increasing liability. The appellant disputed the demand, primarily arguing the show cause notice was time-barred under Section 11A(1) of the Act. The notice alleged wilful suppression of facts regarding excess duty collection not disclosed to the authorities.

3. The appellant contended that rounding off discrepancies in assessable values were due to procedural norms, with rounding off amounts collected from buyers disclosed in invoices. The appellant argued that if the proper officer had examined the figures, the slight excess collection would have been evident, challenging the suppression allegations.

4. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the limitation aspect and suppression of facts. It remanded the case for verifying suppression across all items in price lists and determining if any part of the notice was time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that no arguments were presented on merits, focusing solely on procedural aspects.

5. Regarding penalty imposition under the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957, the Tribunal cited a precedent holding that penalty cannot be imposed under a law lacking penalty provisions. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order and remanding the case for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority after verifying price list entries and addressing the limitation aspect, emphasizing the need for due process and verification of suppression allegations.