TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad are manufacturers of FRP/PP Storage tanks, FRP/PP lining pipes and FRP roofing sheets falling under Chapter 39. Officers of Central Excise Department visited the appellants unit and found that there was another unit by name of Santom Industrial Liners (SIL) belonging to the same proprietor Sri M.V. Francis operating in the same premises. They have used same workers and exchanged orders from one firm to another. Funds were also transferred in similar manner. They were maintaining parallel set of invoices. Their turnover exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs every year from 93-94 onwards. Santom Enterprises had transferred Rs. 3,00,000/- to Santom Industrial Liners on 27-11-97. Sri M. Francis in his statement inter alia stated that they have supplied good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utory records. As Santom Industrial Liners had no separate premises till December 97 and the work force and machinery was also used for producing goods under both the names, adjudicating authority held that clubbing of clearances of Santom Enterprises and Santom Industrial Liners was in order. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 108/2003 (H-III) C.E. dated 15-9-2003 held that impugned goods were classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading No. 3926.90 and eligible for consequential relief. And as the dispute involved interpretation of statutory provisions, no penalty or demand for interest was held to be sustainable. Thereafter, on department appealing to Hon'ble CESTAT, vide impugned order, the matter has been sent back for de novo c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them are cited below : (a) CCE Bombay v. Chemical process Equipments Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 157 (Tri.-Del.) (b) 1999 (112) E.L.T. 813 (Tri.-Mum.) (c) Graphite Vicarb India Ltd., v. CCE Aurangabad, 1997 (94) E.L.T. 154 (T) It is the submission that the show cause notice has alleged suppression of facts or mis-declaration on the part of the appellants and he submits that this is not so, because when the decision of the Tribunal on an identical issue were in favour of the appellants there could not be any suppression or mis-declaration on his part. For this proposition, he relies upon the following decisions of the Tribunal (a) C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Excise Act, 1944. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel that during the relevant period the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Bombay v. Chemical Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and Graphite Vicarb India Ltd. v. CCE Aurangabad (supra), were holding the fort which had laid down the law, that special purpose tanks used in chemical plants are classifiable under 3926.90 and are eligible for benefit of exemption under notification No. 132/86. It can be said that the appellant could have entertained a bona fide belief for classifying the product under 3926.90 in view of the law which has been settled by the Tribunal. Subsequently, law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (in 1998), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....must take note of the fact that different views have been expressed at different stages both by the Tribunal and the High Court of Bombay in Citric India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1993 (66) E.L.T. 566 (Bom.), and by this Court also in one of the decisions cited above, it is not clear as to whether the law is absolutely clear on the matter or not and the authorities also had to issue clarifications from time to time. In the circumstances, we think, invoking of Section 11A is not called for and levy of penalty in the present case would not be appropriate and the application of extended period of limitation is not justified. The order of the Tribunal is modified to this extent. In other respects the order of the Tribunal stands maintained. " ....