2000 (9) TMI 852 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under specific headings.
2. Demand raised invoking longer period of limitation.
3. Disclosure of information to the Revenue Department.

Classification of Goods:
The judgment revolves around the classification of goods under different headings for the purpose of excise duty. The appellant contested the demand raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, arguing that the goods were wrongly classified under headings 8423.00 and 8607.00 instead of Chapter 73. The appellant acknowledged a previous Tribunal ruling regarding Brake Blocks under heading 8607.00. The advocate for the appellant did not dispute the merits of the case but focused on the classification issue.

Demand Invoking Longer Period of Limitation:
The demand for duty was raised for multiple periods by invoking the longer period of limitation, dating back to 1988-89. The appellant's advocate argued that the demand was time-barred, citing the Tribunal's observations in a similar case and various Supreme Court decisions. The appellant had disclosed their manufacturing activities to the Revenue through letters, seeking guidance on duty payment. The appellant contended that the Revenue was aware of their activities and non-payment of duty on specific items, indicating no intention to evade payment.

Disclosure of Information to Revenue Department:
The judgment analyzed the appellant's communication with the Revenue Department, particularly a letter dated 29-3-1988, where the appellant provided detailed information about their manufacturing activities and sought clarification on duty applicability. The adjudicating authority had acknowledged receiving the letter but invoked the longer period of limitation, alleging the appellant's responsibility to correctly classify products. However, the judgment emphasized that the appellant had not suppressed any information and had cooperated with the Revenue by disclosing all relevant details. The Tribunal concluded that the invocation of the longer period was unjustified, as there was no evidence of evasion of duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, setting aside the impugned order that confirmed the duty demand and imposed a personal penalty. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper classification of goods for excise duty purposes and the significance of transparent communication between taxpayers and the Revenue Department to avoid disputes and ensure compliance with tax regulations.