2001 (5) TMI 598 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over duty demand and penalty imposition by Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Applicability of abatement on cum-duty price for clearances made without payment of duty.
3. Claim of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for an SSI unit.
4. Allegations of misuse of Sales Tax Registration Number and Sales Tax Invoice by a new firm.
5. Time-barred demands and correct duty liability determination.
6. Discrepancy in the duty amount confirmed compared to the demand raised in the show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved a dispute between the Revenue and the assessee regarding the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 4,07,372 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Revenue contested the abatement granted on the assessable value, while the assessee challenged the duty demand and penalty.

2. The issue of abatement on cum-duty price for clearances made without payment of duty was raised. The appellants claimed deductions based on a Larger Bench judgment in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres. The Tribunal noted that the abatement issue was settled by the cited judgment, and upheld the abatement granted by the Commissioner, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

3. The assessee claimed exemption under Notification No. 175/86 as an SSI unit. The counsel argued that despite the closure of the company, a new firm was established with collaboration, utilizing the assets of the previous company. The Tribunal found that the new unit did not have a separate factory and continued to operate under the previous company's name, rejecting the appeal on merits.

4. Allegations of misuse of Sales Tax Registration Number and Sales Tax Invoice by the new firm were raised. The Tribunal determined that the new unit merely filed a declaration form and did not operate as a separate entity, leading to the rejection of the appeal on this ground.

5. The issue of time-barred demands and correct duty liability determination was addressed. The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Nizam Sugars Ltd., holding that the demands were not time-barred due to suppression of information, rejecting the contention raised by the appellant.

6. A discrepancy in the duty amount confirmed compared to the demand raised in the show cause notice was noted. The Tribunal found an error in the amounts confirmed by the Commissioner and directed a re-determination of the correct duty figure in line with the show cause notice. The appeal of the appellant was allowed partially for re-determining the duty and penalty.

In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's appeal succeeded partially by remand for re-determining the duty and penalty based on the correct amounts in the show cause notice.