2000 (12) TMI 439 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal annuls duty demand & penalty, ruling time-barred claim. Appellants eligible for exemption under specific notification.

The Tribunal set aside the Central Excise duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellants, ruling that the demand was time-barred as it exceeded the ... Demand and penalty - Limitation Issues:1. Central Excise duty demand on cement articles manufactured and cleared.2. Imposition of penalty on the appellants.3. Limitation for demand of Central Excise duty.4. Availability of exemption under Notification No. 59/90 for goods manufactured at site.Central Excise Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition:The judgment involved a case where the learned Collector confirmed a demand of Central Excise duty on cement articles manufactured and cleared by the appellants, along with imposing a penalty. The Collector observed that the duty is levied on the manufacturer or producer, irrespective of ownership of goods. The appellants challenged this order through an appeal.Limitation for Central Excise Duty Demand:The appellants argued on two main issues: limitation and exemption availability under Notification No. 59/90. The consultant contended that since the demand period exceeded six months and there was no suppression or intention to evade duty, the demand was time-barred. The appeal was sought to be accepted on this ground.Exemption under Notification No. 59/90:Regarding the exemption, the consultant argued that the appellants were entitled to it as the cement articles were supplied to railways, and the manufacturing site was allotted by the railways. Citing a relevant tribunal judgment, the consultant emphasized that the appellants should benefit from the notification due to the site allocation by the railways. The consultant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on this exemption.Judgment and Decision:After considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal noted that there was no misstatement or suppression of facts regarding the cement articles supplied to railways. As the demand exceeded the six-month limitation period, it was set aside, leading to the penalty being also annulled. The Tribunal further determined that the appellants were manufacturing at a site allotted by the railways and were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/90. Relying on a relevant tribunal decision, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants qualified for the exemption, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal on both counts.