2000 (8) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Bowl Assembly, Column Assembly, and Discharge Head Assembly as parts of Power Driven Pumps (P.D. Pumps).
2. Entitlement to exemption under various notifications.
3. Invocation of the longer period of limitation due to alleged suppression and misstatement of facts by the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Assemblies:
The primary issue was whether the Bowl Assembly, Column Assembly, and Discharge Head Assembly together constituted P.D. Pumps eligible for exemption or if only the Bowl Assembly should be classified as P.D. Pumps, with the other two assemblies treated as parts or accessories subject to duty. The Commissioner, relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Jyoti Ltd. v. U.O.I., concluded that only the Bowl Assembly qualified as P.D. Pumps eligible for exemption, while the Column Assembly and Discharge Head Assembly were parts subject to duty. The appellants contended that the Gujarat High Court's judgment did not pertain to the classification of parts in the present appeals and argued that the entire set should be treated as a P.D. Pump.

2. Entitlement to Exemption:
The appellants argued that the entire set, including the Bowl Assembly, Column Assembly, and Discharge Head Assembly, should be treated as a P.D. Pump entitled to exemption. They referred to a Central Board of Excise & Customs Circular and a letter from the Commissioner (CX), CBEC, New Delhi, to support their claim. However, the Tribunal, following the Gujarat High Court's decision, held that the Column Assembly and Discharge Head Assembly were accessories and not integral parts of the P.D. Pump, thus not entitled to exemption.

3. Limitation and Alleged Suppression:
The Commissioner invoked a longer period of limitation, alleging that the appellants did not maintain statutory records for the Column Assembly and Discharge Head Assembly and did not file separate C/Lists after the Gujarat High Court's decision. The appellants argued that their C/Lists were duly approved, RT-12 returns were filed, and the Department was aware of their claim for exemption on the entire set. The Tribunal found that the Revenue was aware of the appellants' manufacturing and clearing practices since 1973, as evidenced by an order of the Asstt. Collector. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants could not be alleged to have made declarations with an intent to evade duty, and the demands raised after six months were barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the show-cause notices were issued much later, in 1983, 1984, and 1991, despite the Gujarat High Court's decision being delivered in 1979.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals on the point of limitation, holding that the demands were barred by limitation and rejecting the Revenue's stand that the appellants misdeclared their product with an intent to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the Bowl Assembly as P.D. Pumps and the Column Assembly and Discharge Head Assembly as parts subject to duty, following the Gujarat High Court's judgment.