Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 780 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTExtended period of limitation - suppression of facts - section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the CESTAT erred in confirming the duty invoking the extended period of limitation when the finding on suppression by the CESTAT falls way short of the requirements of proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Held that: - There is a reference to the declarations made by the appellants for the years 1987-88 to 1994-95. In reply, a legislative history of classification of articles of plastic has been set out. It was pointed out in the reply that majority of the demand has been raised in respect of goods classified as battery parts. It was contended in the reply that so called battery parts are nothing but filters. It was contended that the same are made wholly out of plastic by using plastic granules. The appellants never declared manufacture or clearance of Plastic Spill, Proof Vent Plugs, Microporous Vent Plugs, Aqua Trap Vent Plugs etc. in their declarations. As regards clubbing, the Appellate Tribunal held that the appellants in these appeals are two different manufactures, but finished goods are produced using the machinery and product facilities in the unit of the appellant in appeal no. 196 of 2005. We must note here that even in the reply of the appellants in both the appeals to the show cause notice, this factual allegation is not disputed. Therefore, it was rightly held that the clearances are required to be aggregated in terms of the Notification No.1/93CE. - on the aspect of clubbing, it is not possible to find fault with the finding. There is a specific allegation in the show cause notice that the goods actually manufactured were not declared which amounts to willful suppression of material facts with the intention of evading the duty on Battery parts. The show cause notice is based on what was revealed in the visit of the Preventive Section to the factories and investigation carried out thereafter. The Appellate Tribunal held that it was not merely a question of wrong classification, but it was a case of suppression. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|