Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2006 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (5) TMI 89 - SC - Central ExciseClassification of the tiles manufactured by the appellant and consequential liability of the appellant to pay differential duties on the same Whether the notice issued demanding excise duty is barred by limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act? Held that:- Simply because the tiles in question are polished or having a shiny look, they do not become glazed tiles. It is clear that vitrification and glazing are two distinct and separate processes - the former being a process to which the ceramic body is subjected before it is made, while the latter is a process to which the said body is subjected after being made. Thus, polishing and glazing are distinct and separate processes and hence the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue cannot be accepted. The assessee is not coating or applying, substances on the tiles which it makes, and hence it's tiles cannot be termed as 'glazed tiles'. Moreover, the Tribunal has held that there was no suppression. This being a finding of fact, we cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. Where the Department had full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of the goods of the assessee, it cannot be said that there was any suppression. We respectfully agree with this view.Thus, we are of the opinion that on both the points involved in this case, i.e. on merits as well as limitation, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. We hold that the proviso to Section 11A will not apply in this case, and we also hold that the assessee did not manufacture any glazed tiles. Appeal dismissed.
|