2000 (8) TMI 832 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty demand and imposition of personal penalty.
2. Grounds of appeal based on limitation and non-following of Rule 57F(2) procedure.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around confirming a duty demand and imposing a personal penalty on the appellants. The Commissioner upheld a duty demand of Rs. 5,50,597.83 against the appellants and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 55,000. The appeal primarily challenges this decision.

2. The appeal argues on the basis of limitation and non-compliance with Rule 57F(2) procedure. The demand in question pertained to a specific period, and the appellants contended that the Department was aware of the relevant facts regarding the receipt and utilization of Copper Inserts supplied free of cost by their customers. The appellants admitted lack of merit but contested the Order on grounds of limitation.

3. The advocate for the appellants highlighted that the Department was informed about the receipt of Copper Inserts and argued that the entire exercise was revenue-neutral due to the Modvat Scheme. The non-following of the Rule 57F(2) procedure was countered by asserting that substantive benefits should not be denied for procedural lapses, citing legal precedents to support the plea of limitation.

4. The Revenue opposed the appeal, emphasizing that the value of free-supplied items should be included in the final product's value as the appellants were treated as manufacturers. The Revenue contended that the correspondence did not clearly establish that the value of Copper Inserts was not added to the assessable value.

5. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and reviewed the impugned Order. While the initial letters might not have explicitly clarified the non-inclusion of Copper Inserts' value, the declaration clearly stated that the value did not affect the price of the final products, indicating no intent to evade duty.

6. Legal precedents were cited to support the appellants' argument that deliberate suppression or intentional misstatement is necessary to invoke a longer limitation period. The Tribunal referenced similar cases where the benefit of doubt was extended to the assessee due to genuine belief and lack of deliberate evasion.

7. The Tribunal concluded that there was no malicious intent on the appellants' part to suppress or misstate facts regarding the free-supplied items. The Revenue did not raise specific queries on inclusion in the assessable value, and the appellants' declaration clarified the non-effect on the final product's value.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the exercise to be revenue-neutral and set aside the impugned Order, allowing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The availability of Rule 57F(2) procedure to the supplier further supported the decision, as no motive to evade duty was attributed to the appellants.