Exemption for State transfers and extended limitation for suppression were both applied narrowly, with penalty relief partly granted.

Clearances to State Government Corporations were held outside Notification No. 74/93-CE, because the exemption was confined to transfers between departments of the State Government, so duty liability remained. The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was upheld where manufacture and removals were not disclosed, registration was absent, and statutory procedure was not followed, establishing wilful suppression with intent to evade duty. On penalty, a separate Rule 173Q penalty was considered unnecessary where Section 11AC applied in one matter, while in the other the penalty was reduced substantially as excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals could be proceeded with without clearance from the Committee on Disputes. (ii) Whether the goods cleared to State Government Corporations were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 74/93-CE dated 28.2.1993. (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression with intent to evade duty. (iv) Whether the penalty under Rule 173Q was sustainable and, if so, to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals could be proceeded with without clearance from the Committee on Disputes.

Analysis: The request to await clearance was declined because the Supreme Court had already indicated reconsideration of the entire Committee on Disputes regime, the proposed committee was not in existence, and the appeals had remained pending for several years. Requiring clearance from a non-existent body was held to be unjust and unfair in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The appeals were proceeded with without insisting on Committee on Disputes clearance.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods cleared to State Government Corporations were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 74/93-CE dated 28.2.1993.

Analysis: The exemption had already been denied in an earlier decision of the same Bench, which had attained finality. The notification was confined to clearances from one department of the State Government to another department of the State Government and did not extend to clearances to separate legal entities such as Government Corporations.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and duty liability was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The material period was wholly beyond the normal limitation period. The record showed non-disclosure of manufacture and clearances, absence of registration during the relevant period, and non-compliance with statutory procedure. The explanation of ignorance of the distinction between a Government department and a Corporation was rejected, and the facts were held to establish wilful suppression with intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked and the duty demand was sustained.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalty under Rule 173Q was sustainable and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: A separate penalty under Rule 173Q was considered unnecessary in the first appeal because the penalty under Section 11AC covered the contravention with intent to evade duty. In the other appeal, while contravention was established, the penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs was found excessive having regard to the circumstances and comparable precedent, and it was reduced substantially.

Conclusion: The separate penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside in one matter and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- in the other.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands were sustained in both matters, the extended limitation plea failed, the exemption plea failed, and only limited relief was granted on the penalty aspect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where clearances are made without registration and without disclosure of manufacture or removals, a bona fide explanation unsupported by the record will not defeat invocation of the extended limitation period for wilful suppression, and an exemption confined to inter-departmental State Government transfers cannot be extended to clearances to Government Corporations.

---