1999 (8) TMI 638 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Extended time limit under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Remission of duty on exported goods.

Extended Time Limit under Section 11A:
The appeal was against Order-in-original No. 13/97, where the Commissioner held that the extended time limit for demand of duty under Section 11A was applicable as a letter dated 17-5-1983 of the appellant was not found in the Central Excise record. The Commissioner also noted that the letter was not mentioned by the Director of the appellant in his statement and appeared to be tampered with. The appellants argued that the letter had been acknowledged by the Inspector and requested examination of the officer during proceedings. The appellants contended that their activity did not amount to manufacture based on previous orders. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' plea, ordering the demand to be worked out for a period of six months preceding the show cause notice, emphasizing discrepancies in the Commissioner's observations on the letter's authenticity.

Remission of Duty on Exported Goods:
Regarding remission of duty on exported goods, the appellants stated that they could not produce documentary evidence as the documents were seized by Central Excise authorities. They requested access to the seized documents to substantiate their claim. The Tribunal found that the remission of duty for exported goods was not implemented, as the relevant documents were in custody of authorities. It directed the department to provide copies of the seized files to the appellants for substantiating their claim and ordered a fresh decision on duty liability within the normal six-month period under Section 11A. The Tribunal emphasized the need for natural justice principles in the final order, disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellants.

This judgment primarily dealt with the application of the extended time limit for demand of duty under Section 11A and the remission of duty on exported goods. The Tribunal scrutinized the Commissioner's findings, highlighting discrepancies and lack of proper verification in determining the duty liability. The decision emphasized the importance of examining evidence thoroughly and ensuring access to necessary documents for substantiating claims. Ultimately, the Tribunal sided with the appellants, ordering a reevaluation of duty liability within the standard time frame and stressing the adherence to principles of natural justice in the final order.