2001 (6) TMI 353 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for duty benefit under Notification No. 73/90 for supplied products.
2. Allegation of supplying incomplete goods leading to a duty demand notice.
3. Interpretation of Board's clarification regarding goods supplied.
4. Discrepancy between certificates issued by different authorities.
5. Time limitation for raising duty demands.
6. Imposition of penalty in case of barred demands.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a Karnataka State Government Undertaking claiming duty benefit under Notification No. 73/90 for products supplied to the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India. While the claims were initially approved and assessed, a show cause notice was later issued demanding duty for a specific period on the grounds of supplying incomplete goods.

2. The Tribunal observed that the assessments were completed, and clearances were made for the goods in question. The Board's clarification regarding RAX 512 Port did not apply to the goods cleared, namely 128 Port RAX, 256 Port RAX, and ILT 512 Port. The Tribunal noted the absence of material supporting the adjudicator's decision to deny exemption based on the Board's clarification, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed.

3. A discrepancy arose regarding the certificates issued by different authorities. While a certificate from the Dy. Director General certified the goods as complete RAX, a clarification from the Chairman of the Department of Telecommunication stated that additional components were required for completeness. The Tribunal found that the appellant's reliance on the Dy. Director General's certificate was justified, and there was no deliberate intent to evade duty, leading to the demands being considered barred by limitation.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of unassailable material to establish an intention to evade duty. In this case, the lack of conclusive evidence led to the demands being deemed time-barred, thereby negating the basis for imposing penalties.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the findings related to the interpretation of certificates, the absence of intent to evade duty, and the time limitation for raising demands. The decision highlighted the necessity for clear and consistent evidence to support duty demands and penalties in such cases.