Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 563 - AT - Central ExciseExtended Period of limitation invoked - Duty demand - department was not aware whether the products in question is for use in the manufacture of Air Conditioners, therefore there is suppression of fact on the part of the Appellant - Held that:- Show cause notice dated 09.09.98 was issued for the period 14.09.93 to 31.03.97 i.e. entire demand raised is for the period before one year of the issue of show cause notice. Hence the total demand is covered under extended period as provided in the first proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. From the records, it is revealed that the goods in question manufactured by the Appellants are solely supplied to Voltas Ltd to their Aircondioning manufacturing unit. We find that the Appellant were submitting their Classification List during the aforesaid period from time to time in respect of the goods manufactured by them which were supplied to Voltas Ltd. We also observed that alongwith the Classification Lists, the appellant were also filing drawings of the products supplied by Voltas Ltd. to the department. On careful perusal of the drawings, we have seen that the drawing clearly indicates Air-condition and it’s model, for example: “1.5 T RAC”, “1.5 TON NEW SPLIT RAC”, “1.5 TON RAC HI-TECH”. From the said details given in the drawings submitted alongwith classification list, it can be known that the parts being manufactured by the appellant is meant for use in the manufacture of Air Conditioners. However from the above discussed facts, it is clear that the drawings of the parts was showing the description of Air Conditioners for which these parts were being supplied by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant is a manufacturer of the various sheet metal parts for different buyers and not only to Voltas Ltd. therefore from their point of view they are of bonafide belief that all the items such as washers, springs and other articles of steel manufactured by them are classifiable in the specific tariff entry given therefor. We find that the bonafide belief of the appellant for classification of the goods can not be doubted in view of the above undisputed facts. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority should not have invoked the extended period as there is no suppression of the facts on the part of the appellants. The entire demand, therefore, is hit by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee
|