2000 (8) TMI 863 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty confirmation against the company and personal penalty imposition.
2. Classification of goods under different headings.
3. Invocation of longer period of limitation.
4. Suppression of facts in Classification Lists.

Issue 1: Duty confirmation and personal penalty imposition
The judgment confirmed duty of Rs. 2,99,827.65 against the company along with a personal penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Additionally, a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 was imposed on the Managing Director. The company was engaged in manufacturing parts of railway rolling stock, including polyester Moulding Compound used both captively and sold to Railways.

Issue 2: Classification of goods
The dispute arose from the classification of goods under different headings. The company claimed their product as Polyester Moulding Compound (SMC) under Heading 3907.99 in their Classification Lists, duly approved by the proper officer. However, the Revenue contended that the product, when processed into continuous sheet form, should be classified differently as Sheet Moulding Compound (SMC).

Issue 3: Invocation of longer period of limitation
The Revenue argued that the longer period of limitation was justified due to the alleged suppression of facts by the company in their Classification Lists. They claimed that the manufacture of Sheet Moulding Compound in continuous sheet form was not disclosed in the Lists, leading to the invocation of the longer limitation period.

Issue 4: Suppression of facts
The Revenue maintained that the company suppressed the fact of manufacturing Sheet Moulding Compound in continuous sheet form, as observed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal noted that the company had declared parts of railway stock and Polyester Moulding Compound in their Classification Lists, reflecting the use of the compound for captive consumption in part manufacturing.

Judgment
After considering the arguments and examining the Classification Lists, the Tribunal found that the demand of duty raised in 1995 for the period from June 1991 to August 1994 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that the proper officer should have verified and satisfied himself about the classification claims before approving the Lists. As the necessary verification was not conducted at the time of approval, the Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred and set aside the impugned Order, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants.