1999 (2) TMI 205 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Classification of goods as waste and scrap of steel under Heading 72.03.
4. Time bar for demands raised in show cause notices.
5. Allegations of mis-statement and suppression of facts.

Issue 1 - Confirmation of Demands under Section 11A:
The judgment involves two Appeals against orders confirming demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Additional Collector held that demands for specific periods were confirmable due to mis-statement and suppression of facts. The Additional Collector also imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The plea of demands being time-barred was not accepted by the Additional Collector.

Issue 2 - Imposition of Penalty:
The Additional Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in one of the Appeals. The penalty was based on the findings of mis-statement and suppression of facts related to the demands confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 3 - Classification of Goods as Waste and Scrap of Steel:
The Director of the company argued that the goods in question should be classified as waste and scrap of steel under Heading 72.03. They claimed that the materials had lost their capacity and were considered in trade as waste and scrap of steel. The company relied on various legal judgments, Central Excise Rules, and Trade Notices to support their classification of the goods and exemption from duty payment.

Issue 4 - Time Bar for Demands:
The appellant contended that the demands raised in the show cause notices were time-barred. They argued that all necessary details were furnished to the department through correspondences, declarations, and classification lists. The appellant highlighted that both Members of the Tribunal had initially found a strong prima facie case on the time bar issue and had referred to relevant Trade Notices to support their position.

Issue 5 - Allegations of Mis-statement and Suppression of Facts:
The judgment analyzed the allegations of mis-statement and suppression of facts in detail. The Tribunal found that there was no suppression or mis-declaration in the matter based on the evidence provided by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to previous cases involving similar issues and held that the demands and penalty imposed were set aside as barred by time, ultimately allowing the appeals on this ground.