Workers Co-op Society's LDPE removal duty upheld, exemption arguments rejected, Rs. 500 penalty upheld, appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on a Workers Co-operative Society for the removal of LDPE without payment, rejecting their arguments of exemption and misunderstanding of the exemption limit for small scale units. The penalty of Rs. 500 was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of evidence supporting their claims and failure to inform authorities about their manufacturing activities in different units.

---

---

Issues:
- Duty demand on removal of LDPE without payment
- Claim of exemption under Notification 54/88
- Appellants' belief regarding exemption limit for small scale units
- Invocation of extended time limit under Section 11A
- Imposition of penalty

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise regarding the removal of LDPE without duty payment. The appellants, a Workers Co-operative Society, were accused of not following Central Excise formalities during 1987-88. A duty of Rs. 1,87,110.13 was demanded along with a personal penalty of Rs. 500.

2. The appellants argued that they believed the LDPE manufactured within the exemption limit did not require duty payment. They cited judgments to support their claim and mentioned manufacturing goods at their premises and at other units. However, the Department contended that all goods manufactured in different units belonged to the appellants.

3. The appellants also sought exemption under Notification 54/88, but no factual basis was provided to support this claim. As no claim was made before the lower authority, the plea was rejected due to lack of evidence.

4. Despite the appellants' belief that each of their 3 units qualified for the small scale exemption limit, their total production exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs. The Tribunal found no justification for the appellants' misunderstanding of the exemption Notification's terms and upheld the duty demand.

5. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to explain any doubts regarding the exemption limits or inform authorities about manufacturing activities in other units. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 11A was deemed applicable, and the duty demand was upheld.

6. The penalty imposed on the appellants was considered lenient at Rs. 500, and the Tribunal saw no reason for reduction. Therefore, the penalty was upheld, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

---