1997 (9) TMI 290 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Demand of Additional Excise Duty on Man Made Fabrics, Limitation on demand, Levying of redemption fine, Imposition of penalty, Double levy of duty, Grant of Proforma Credit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerns the demand of Additional Excise Duty on Man Made Fabrics (MMF) supplied for printing processing. The demand period is from 1-4-1982 to 26-6-1986, with a show cause notice issued on 28-10-1986.

2. The appellant argued that the demand should be time-barred due to ongoing disputes since 1983 and the High Court's stay order. Reference was made to the judgment in Gokak Patel's case and the interpretation of Tariff Item 22(1)(b) regarding the processes for duty liability.

3. The plea regarding the redemption fine of Rs. 30,000 being unjustified as the goods were provisionally released and should have been recovered through the bond was raised.

4. The imposition of the penalty was contested on the grounds of continuous communication with authorities and absence of malicious intent.

5. The issue of double levy of duty was raised concerning goods initially uncleared but later cleared upon payment of duty. The appellant sought a reduction in the duty amount accordingly.

6. The department argued that the appellant's failure to pay duty despite being instructed by authorities constituted suppression of facts justifying the penalty.

7. The department justified the redemption fine citing a Supreme Court ruling that the bond or Bank Guarantee represents the goods, thus supporting the redemption fine imposition.

8. Verification of total duty payment was requested, especially if duty was already paid for goods found in the factory and subsequently demanded again through a show cause notice.

9. The denial of Proforma Credit was challenged by the appellant, claiming they should have appealed against the denial to be entitled to the benefit.

10. The Tribunal noted the appellant's failure to pay duty despite being directed by authorities and the High Court, indicating suppression of facts to evade payment.

11. The Tribunal held that the High Court's order to determine duty, secured by a Bank Guarantee, met the requirements of the show cause notice. Compliance with RT 12 returns was considered sufficient, eliminating the limitation issue.

12. The Tribunal upheld the classification of goods under Tariff Heading 22(1)(b) based on the description's clear indication of duty liability for specified processes.

13. The redemption fine imposition was deemed justified based on the representation of goods by the Bank Guarantee, aligning with a Supreme Court decision.

14. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 considering the appellant's approach to the High Court and compliance with its directions.

15. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to examine the double levy plea and allow abatement if the duty was already paid for the goods in question.

16. The redemption fine amount was deemed appropriate for goods valued at Rs. 3 lakhs, partially allowing the appeal in the specified terms.