2016 (10) TMI 1083 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds orders, dismisses appeals for lack of merit.

Unimetal Ispat Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum

The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, rejecting the appeals due to lack of merit based on detailed discussions and considerations of all presented ... Benefit of N/N. 99/93-C.E., dated 7-12-1993 - Foundry Grade Pig Iron - phosphorus content - The appellants contend that their product namely, ‘foundry grade pig iron’ is having phosphorous content of 0.2% and above; therefore, the same is entitled to the benefit of N/N. 99/93-C.Ex., dated 7-12-1993? - Held that: - Notification prescribes that ‘Foundry Grade Pig Iron’, falling under sub-heading No. 7201.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, with a phosphorous content of 0.2% and above is exempted from the whole of the duty of Central Excise - The notification issued by the Central Government cannot be changed and misread by referring to some guidelines of the Circular issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to round off the test reports and read them to state that 0.15% and above is equal to 0.2% and above, which is the condition of the N/N. 99/93-C.E. The argument of the appellants that once test results are in their favour, samples cannot be retested is also not a valid argument, when the Department had the intelligence of manipulation of test results and which was found to be true when the samples were sent to different laboratories for retesting and when in overwhelmingly large number of cases, the test results clearly indicated that the appellants’ unit was manufacturing low phosphorous grade pig iron, which is not entitled to the benefit of N/N. 99/93-C.E. as per the condition mentioned therein. Time limitation - Held that: - it is on record that appellant were wilfully misstating and suppressing the facts and manipulating the test results with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty - Revenue can rightly issue the SCN, for the demand of the duty of Central Excise for the period of beyond one year. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues Involved:- Benefit of Notification No. 99/93-C.E. for 'foundry grade pig iron' with phosphorous content- Misdeclaration of product leading to evasion of Central Excise duty- Validity of retesting samples by the Department- Interpretation of the Notification criteria- Time-barred demand for duty- Applicability of case laws in support of appellantsIssue 1: Benefit of Notification No. 99/93-C.E. for 'foundry grade pig iron' with phosphorous content:The case revolves around the eligibility of M/s. Unimetal Ispat Ltd. for the benefit of Notification No. 99/93-C.E., exempting 'foundry grade pig iron' with phosphorous content of 0.2% and above from Central Excise duty. The appellants argued that their product met the phosphorous content criteria for exemption under the Notification.Issue 2: Misdeclaration of product leading to evasion of Central Excise duty:The Department alleged that M/s. Unimetal Ispat Ltd. misdeclared low-grade phosphorous content pig iron as high-grade, evading Central Excise duty. This led to the issuance of a show cause notice and subsequent confirmation of duty and penalties by the Commissioner, which the appellants contested.Issue 3: Validity of retesting samples by the Department:The appellants challenged the Department's authority to retest samples at different laboratories, arguing that favorable results from one laboratory should suffice. However, the Department defended its actions based on suspicions of manipulation of test reports.Issue 4: Interpretation of the Notification criteria:A key contention was the interpretation of the Notification criteria regarding phosphorous content. The appellants sought a broader interpretation, including content between 0.15% and 0.19%, while the Department insisted on a strict reading of the 0.2% threshold for exemption.Issue 5: Time-barred demand for duty:The appellants claimed that the demand for duty was time-barred for a specific period due to the issuance date of the show cause notice. However, the Department argued that intentional misrepresentation and suppression of facts justified the issuance beyond the typical timeframe.Issue 6: Applicability of case laws in support of appellants:The appellants relied on specific case laws to support their arguments regarding the benefit of the Notification and the interpretation of phosphorous content criteria. However, the Tribunal found that the cited cases were not directly applicable to the unique circumstances of this case.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, rejecting the appeals due to lack of merit based on detailed discussions and considerations of all presented facts, arguments, and legal provisions.---