9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise Tariff Schedule got generated. Such waste and scrap of iron and steel were exempt from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 23/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 and the appellants had filed classification list under Rule 173B accordingly. Notification No. 23/95-C.E. ibid was rescinded under Notification No. 90/95-C.E., dated 18-5-95 and simultaneously Notification No. 89/95-C.E. was issued, which reads as under : - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts waste, parings and scrap arising in the course of manufacture of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ 15% ad valorem) and without accounting for the production and clearance of the goods in their statutory records. After completing the investigations, the department issued Show Cause Notice dated 11-3-99 demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,13,475/- on the waste and scrap for the aforementioned period, proposing to levy interest @ 20% on the duty amount under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act as also to impose penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Show Cause Notice invoked the extended period of limitation by alleging that the party had suppressed the production and clearance of the scrap from the department with intent to evade payment of duty. In their reply to the Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts used in the production of the waste and scrap, they could not have had any intent to evade payment of duty at the time of clearance of such waste and scrap. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, as Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act came into force only on 28-9-96, it was illegal on the part of the lower authorities to have ordered levy of interest on the duty under Section 11AB and imposed mandatory penalty on the appellants under Section 11AC. In support of his arguments on the limitation issue, ld. Counsel relied on the following case laws : - (i) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Others [1979 (118) ITR 326 (S.C.)] (ii) Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh [2002 (14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrap were known to the department and the appellants did not suppress or conceal anything from them. Apropos the appellant s argument with reference to approved classification list, the authorities below have recorded a finding that Rule 173B was contravened by the appellants with intent to evade payment of duty, by not filing fresh classification list after the issuance of Notification No. 89/95-C.E. I note that this finding has not been challenged in this appeal. Contravention of Central Excise Rules with intent to evade payment of duty is a valid and sufficient ground for invocation of the extended period of limitation and, therefore, I hold that the demand of duty in this case is not hit by limitation. It would be so even if the Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
