TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals partly granted in excise duty case, emphasis on clear allegations and evidence.</h1> <h3>UNITED BROTHERS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.</h3> UNITED BROTHERS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 455 (Tribunal) Issues: Exemption eligibility based on value of excisable goods, classification of excisable goods, limitation period for demand.Analysis:1. Exemption Eligibility: The appellants manufactured pressure cookers and aluminium utensils during 1979-80 and 1980-81, seeking exemption under Notification No. 71/78 for pressure cookers and unconditional exemption for aluminium utensils under Notification No. 244/77-C.E. The Central Excise Department alleged that the appellants wrongly availed exemption by not considering the value of aluminium utensils post-amendment. The appellants argued misunderstanding, not malintent, and cited confusion regarding excisable goods' definition. The Tribunal acknowledged that exempted goods are considered excisable goods for value computation, rejecting the appellants' claim.2. Limitation Period: The Central Excise Department issued show cause notices in 1981 without alleging suppression or misstatement, leading the appellants to argue that demands before 12-12-1980 were time-barred. The Tribunal examined the absence of clear allegations in the notices and referenced a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the need for positive evidence of intentional withholding of information for extended limitation. As no deliberate withholding was proven, the Tribunal limited the demand to six months before the show cause notice date.3. Judgment: The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, recognizing the appellants' misunderstanding but upholding the denial of exemption based on the value of all excisable goods. Additionally, the limitation period for demand was restricted to six months due to the lack of evidence of intentional information withholding. The judgment highlights the importance of clear allegations and positive evidence in excise duty cases to establish liability beyond the standard limitation period.
TaxTMI 