1998 (2) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules duty evasion claim unsustainable, exempts goods, upholds previous liability, maintains penalty amount.

The Tribunal ruled in the case involving duty evasion allegations and penalty imposition that the duty demand for a specific period was not sustainable ... Trusses, columns, wireless and lighting towers - Dutiability of - Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts Issues:1. Allegations of duty evasion and penalty imposition based on suppression of facts.2. Interpretation of exemption notifications and applicability of duty liability.3. Consideration of goods' dutiability and eligibility for exemptions.4. Assessment of duty liability for the specified period and penalty imposition.Analysis:Issue 1: Allegations of duty evasion and penalty imposition based on suppression of factsThe case involved a show cause notice alleging duty evasion by the appellant for the period July 1986 to July 1988. The notice accused the appellant of intentionally not declaring production and clearance, leading to a duty evasion of Rs. 28,62,422.75. The respondent Collector confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000, which led to the appeal before the Tribunal.Issue 2: Interpretation of exemption notifications and applicability of duty liabilityThe appellant argued that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification 182/87-C.E. from July 10, 1987, based on a previous judgment by the Tribunal. They contended that certain goods were exempt from duty under specific notifications and that the duty liability only existed for a limited period based on the changes in tariff items and exemption notifications over time.Issue 3: Consideration of goods' dutiability and eligibility for exemptionsThe appellant presented arguments regarding the dutiability of various goods such as coal tubs, grizley, truck bodies, trusses, columns, water tanks, and almirahs. They relied on specific notifications and legal precedents to support their claims that certain goods were not subject to duty based on their use or marketability.Issue 4: Assessment of duty liability for the specified period and penalty impositionAfter considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal held that the duty demand for the period from July 10, 1987, to July 26, 1988, was not sustainable and not recoverable from the appellant. The Tribunal also ruled on the dutiability of specific goods, exempting trusses, columns, and wireless/lighting towers from duty but holding water tanks as dutiable. The duty liability for the period July 1986 to July 1987 on all goods except the exempted ones was upheld, and the penalty amount remained unchanged due to its insignificance.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by ordering the recovery of duty for the specified period on certain goods while maintaining the penalty amount.