1999 (1) TMI 311 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation under Section 11A of Central Excise and Salt Act.
2. Classification discrepancy for computer parts.
3. Time bar for duty demands.
4. Allegations of suppression and misstatement.
5. Applicability of proviso to Section 11A.
6. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the duty demand confirmation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, arising from the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise. The duty demands were related to Modvat credit utilized for payment of duty on computer parts, with an imposed penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules.

2. The appellants, manufacturers of computer-related products, faced a discrepancy in classification for certain parts falling under Chapter Heading 84.73 instead of 84.71. The Range Officer identified the misclassification during scrutiny, leading to differential duty demands for the relevant periods and issuance of a show cause notice.

3. The main contention of the appellants was the time bar for the duty demands, arguing that the details were declared in classification lists and RT-12 returns, which were regularly assessed and accepted by the department. The issue of suppression and misstatement was raised, emphasizing that the demands were time-barred based on the information provided in the returns.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the department had full knowledge of the goods cleared by the appellants, as evidenced by the details in classification lists and returns approved over time. The Tribunal emphasized that invoking the proviso to Section 11A required proof of intentional evasion, which was not established in this case due to the department's awareness of the goods being cleared.

5. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the demands were time-barred, as the department failed to take timely action on the classification discrepancy. The Tribunal highlighted that the stay order issued earlier supported the view that there was no suppression, reinforcing the decision that the demands were not sustainable, leading to the appellant's success in the appeal.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the demands were barred by time, and the penalty imposed was not sustainable based on the lack of evidence supporting intentional evasion of duty.