TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anction of the factory in which the various goods were manufactured. The excise authorities granted L4 licence. The appellant contends that the same was done after verifying the ground plans. Necessary classification list was supplied on 22nd March, 1979 for approval by the excise authorities and the appellant claimed benefit of exemption of Notification No. 89/79-Central Excise, dated 1-3-1979. The said classification list submitted by the appellant was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his letter dated 25th May, 1979. For the period from 1-4-1979 to 30-6-1979, the appellant filed his RT-12 for the assessment, which was also finally assessed without any protest or objection. Inasmuch as, however, as the appellant claimed that its goods were wholly exempted by virtue of the Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979, the appellant wrote to the Superintendent of Central Excise asking for dispensation from filing RT-12 every month. The Superintendent by his order informed the appellant that it need not file RT-12, but should inform the Excise Department monthly by means of a simple letter the total clearance effected in the month in question. Thereafter, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f those clearances was payable under Tariff Item 68 and that the show cause notice was not barred by time. The Collector, accordingly, imposed a penalty of Rs.1 lac. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant went up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and partly upheld the order of the Collector. So far as the question of classification of the different fittings was concerned, the Tribunal held that the classification should have been as nuts under Tariff Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal also held that the appellant was guilty of suppression and therefore rejected the submission of the appellant that the show cause notice was barred by time. The contention of the appellant in respect of the benefit of exemption being available to the extent of export effected indirectly on the basis of the earlier decision of the Tribunal, was accepted by the Tribunal and the order of the Collector was modified to that extent. The Tribunal also reduced the amount of penalty imposed by the Collector from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 50,000/-. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is in appeal before this Court. The first contention that was agit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... flow of oil without leakage. The question is, however, not as to what is the process facilitated as a result of the nuts, but the question is, which the Tribunal itself posed is - whether the nuts are fasteners or do they have any other independent function? The Tribunal found that it had not been shown before them that they had any such independent function. To say that these nuts are leak proof, was only to reiterate the fact of their essential character and quality as fasteners and not to substantiate any argument as regards their independent function. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal even taking the functional approach to the identity of the goods, came to the conclusion that the goods in question were properly classifiable as nuts. That conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be assailed in appeal in view of the evidence on record as noted before. Certain decisions were referred to before the Tribunal by the appellant in support of its contention that in certain cases goods of these types had not been considered to be nuts. These goods, as the Tribunal noted, were in the nature of bolts, nuts and rods of special type manufactured by a particular party. Therefore, these were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, that there was no suppression of any fact. It may be relevant in this connection to refer to Section 11A of the Act, which provides as follows :- "When any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, a Central Excise Officer may, within six months from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice : Provided that where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "Central Excise Officer", the words "Collector of Central Excise", and for the words "six months", th....