2004 (1) TMI 74 - SC - Central Excise

Court upholds excise duty liability for supplying sleepers to railways, dismissing appeal against Tribunal's order.

The Court dismissed the appeal against the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order, holding the Appellants liable to pay excise ... Manufacture - Demand - Limitation - whether the Appellants are liable to pay excise duty in respect of sleepers supplied by them to the railways - Held that:- It was submitted that the Appellants were not manufacturing any sleepers but were only supplying timbers to the railways. This submission is contrary to the admitted position. In reply to the show cause notice sent on 10th November, 1988, the Appellants admitted that sleepers were being manufactured by them. In the reply it was only contended that there was no commercial activity in such manufacturing. Also show cause notices had been issued to the Appellants for earlier periods also. Even at that stage it had been admitted that the Appellants were manufacturing sleepers. Duty was levied for the earlier periods. That duty has been paid by the Appellants. This also shows that it is an admitted position that sleepers were being manufactured by the Appellants - Therefore, no reason to interfere - Decided against assessee. Issues:Whether the Appellants are liable to pay excise duty in respect of sleepers supplied to the railways.Whether the show cause notice was beyond time and if Section 11(A) provisions could have been invoked.Analysis:The appeal in this case is against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, concerning the liability of the Appellants to pay excise duty for sleepers supplied to the railways. The Appellants initially claimed they were not manufacturing sleepers but only supplying timbers. However, in response to a show cause notice, they admitted to manufacturing sleepers, although they argued there was no commercial activity involved. It was revealed that show cause notices had been issued earlier as well, and duty had been paid for those periods, indicating an admitted position of manufacturing sleepers by the Appellants.The Appellants contended that the show cause notice was time-barred, and Section 11(A) provisions could not have been invoked. However, it was found that the Department had no knowledge of the supply of sleepers free of cost during that period. The Appellants had not obtained a license, filed a classification list, or complied with formalities under the Act. Therefore, the contention regarding the time limitation was not accepted.Ultimately, the Court held that since the Appellants had admitted to manufacturing sleepers and had not fulfilled legal requirements, there was no basis to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.