2000 (5) TMI 808 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Liability to pay duty on industrial waste solvents and Isopropyl Alcohol-Mother Liquor waste cleared from 1992 to 1995.
- Invocation of the extended period under Sec. 11A(1) of the Act.
- Allegation of suppression of facts and contravention of rules.
- Interpretation of the show cause notice and its implications.
- Comparison with a Supreme Court judgment regarding mis-statement and suppression of facts.

Analysis:

1. Liability to pay duty: The appeal challenged the order confirming the liability of the appellant to pay duty on industrial waste solvents and Isopropyl Alcohol-Mother Liquor waste cleared between December 1992 and June 1995.

2. Invocation of extended period: The notice to show cause invoked the extended period under the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) of the Act, alleging suppression of facts. The appellant argued that the extended period should not apply as the department was informed about the goods' manufacture and clearance, and there was no intentional suppression.

3. Allegation of suppression and contravention: The department alleged suppression of facts and contravention of rules, citing a letter from the Superintendent asking for duty payment, which the appellant reportedly refused. The appellant contended that full details of the goods were provided, and non-payment was not due to suppression.

4. Interpretation of show cause notice: The Tribunal analyzed the show cause notice, emphasizing a sentence indicating suppression of facts and clearance as the basis for invoking the extended period. The notice also mentioned contravention of rules, but the Tribunal found this was not the primary reason for invoking the extended period.

5. Comparison with Supreme Court judgment: The department relied on a Supreme Court judgment, but the Tribunal distinguished the case, noting that in the present matter, the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) was specifically invoked. The Tribunal concluded that there was no intention to invoke the extended period based on contravention of rules.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the notice did not validly invoke the extended period of limitation, allowing the appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of specific grounds for invoking the extended period and clarified the interpretation of the show cause notice in determining liability for duty payment.