2001 (10) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demands of duties by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on impugned orders.
2. Appellants selling molasses at a lower price than the one fixed by the Government of Bihar and consequent duty demands.
3. Interpretation of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding assessment of excisable goods.
4. Bar on invoking extended period of limitation in absence of suppression or misstatement.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involved two appeals arising from the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming demands of duties. The demands were related to the sale of molasses by two appellants engaged in sugar and molasses manufacturing.

2. The appellants sold molasses at prices lower than those fixed by the Government of Bihar, leading to show cause notices for the confirmation of differential duty demands. The appellants argued that duty should be charged based on the wholesale price in the open market, not the maximum price fixed by the government.

3. The appellants contended that under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, duty should only be charged at the maximum price fixed under any statute. However, the Tribunal interpreted the provision to deem the maximum price fixed by law as the normal price for assessment purposes, regardless of the actual selling price.

4. The judgment also addressed the issue of the limitation period for one of the appellants, where the show cause notice confirming duty demand lacked allegations of suppression or misstatement. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the longer period of limitation could not be invoked without proper justification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals on merits but held that the demand for duty based on the show cause notice dated 1-4-97 would only be confirmed for the period falling within six months from the notice issuance, considering the limitation aspect.