1999 (3) TMI 584 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand exceeding exemption limit time-barred; penalty set aside.

JAI MATA PLYWOOD CO. PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT

The Tribunal held that the demand of duty exceeding the exemption limit was time-barred as the second notice did not present new evidence beyond the first ... Demand - Limitation Issues:1. Duty liability exceeding exemption limit under different headings.2. Invocation of larger period for demand of duty.3. Allegations of wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts.4. Non-determination of correct duty by the appellants.5. Progressive total not provided in RT 12 returns.Analysis:1. The case involved the appellants manufacturing plywood falling under two different Headings, with duty liability exceeding the exemption limit under Heading 44.08. The Revenue demanded duty on clearances exceeding the limit, alleging incorrect duty determination by the appellants and imposed a penalty.2. The appellant argued that a previous show cause notice for the same period did not allege wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. They contended that the second notice invoking a larger period of five years lacked merit and was time-barred, citing legal precedents. The appellant emphasized that the Revenue had the necessary information to raise the demand within the normal limitation period.3. The Revenue maintained that the appellants should have paid the duty, indicating their intention, and justified the invocation of the larger period due to non-determination of correct duty. The absence of progressive total in the RT 12 returns was highlighted as non-compliance by the appellants.4. The Tribunal noted that the second show cause notice did not introduce any fresh evidence of suppression or wilful mis-statement beyond the first notice. It was observed that the basis for both notices was the same, and the Revenue had access to relevant documents for timely action. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand of duty was time-barred and set it aside, along with the penalty.5. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no justification for invoking the larger period for duty demand, as the circumstances did not support allegations of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The penalty was also deemed unwarranted. Therefore, both the demand of duty and the penalty were set aside in favor of the appellants.