TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice dated 27/6/2002. This case is related to classification dispute i.e., whether the impugned goods is classifiable under Heading No. 7206.90 or 7224.90 of the CETA. Further, whether the respondents are required to discharge duty on impugned goods under Section 3A of the Act during the period 1/4/1998 to 31/3/2000 and whether the duty demand and other proposals of the impugned show cause notice are sustainable. 2. Section 3A was inserted in the Central Excise Act, 1994 by Section 81 of the Finance Act, 1997 (26 of 1997) w.e.f. 14.05.1997 to charge duty on notified goods on the basis of capacity of production. Ingots and billets of non-alloy steel falling under Heading No. 7206.90 and 7207.90 were notified under Section 3A of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. 4. Central Excise Officers during their visit to the factory of the respondent on 13/1/2000, besides conducting other checks, had taken samples of ingots and sent to Chemical Examiner, CRCL, New Delhi for testing. The Chemical Examiner vide his report dated 19-20/9/2000 reported that the impugned sample was other than alloy steel. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the respondent for recovery of duty on ingots under Compounded Levy Scheme under Section3A of the Act and denial of other benefits which are not available to manufacturers working under section 3A of the Act. 5. Adjudicating Authority over-ruled the objections raised by the respondent to the test report and concluded that the same will be applicable w.e.f. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allegation of suppression can be made against them since they have filed classification declaration w.e.f. 1/4/1999 and declared their product, Alloy Steel Ingot which has never been disputed by the Revenue. 8. We have heard both the sides duly represented by Ld. Counsel, Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the appellant and Ms. Reena Khair, Advocate for the appellant. Ld. DR explained at length the case in detail. He argued that the Commissioner in the impugned order should have confirmed the full duty demanded in the show cause notice since the Chemical Examiner's report has established the mis-declaration on the part of the respondent. Further, he argued that on account of the deliberate mis-statement and withholding of material information on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he adjudicating authority and concluded as below: Individual constituents of party's sample have been reported by the Joint Director (retired) CRCL New Delhi on 3.2.2003 as per which party no. 1's sample contained Manganese -0.386%, Chromium-0.012%, Copper 0.064%, Nickel -0.018% and Carbon 0.209% only. The test for A1, B, Co, Pb, Mo, Si, Ti, W and V is reported to be negative. It is observed that the percentage content of elements as reported in the test report is less than the percentage content of elements prescribed in Chapter Note 1(f) of Chapter 72 of CETA for other alloy steel:. CRCL is authorized laboratory and has certified in the test report dated 19/20.09.2000 that the sample of the party was other than alloy steel. Since the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show that they have changed their manufacturing process during the period 1998 to 2000. Further, the respondent had supplied the goods such as MS-Rounds, MS-Channels, etc., but have not produced evidence of products of MS-ingots. We are of the view that on the above grounds, there is no justification to pre-date demand to 1998. Allegation in the show cause notice is that the respondent has manufactured non-alloy steel ingots while they have declared their product as alloy steel ingots. To disprove the declaration of party, the Revenue, in its investigation, is required to produce the evidence. The evidence which is on record to support the allegation is the report of the chemical examiner after testing the sample drawn on 13/1/2000. Hence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re inclined to take the view that this is nothing but deliberate withholding of information which will make this a fit case to invoke extended time limit under the proviso to section 11A of the Act for demand of duty. 15. Commissioner in the impugned order has already determined the production capacity and has fixed the duty liability of the respondent per year as Rs. 2 lakhs per month. He has also quantified total duty liability for the period 13/1/2000 to 31/3/2000 under Section 3A of the Act as Rs. 5,22,581/-. 16. Ld. Advocate for the respondent has raised a plea that Modvat Credit would be allowable to them and the duty payable on the ingots for using for payment of duty on the rolled products. We find that this claim is fairly allowa....