TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn over of Rs. 2 crores in 1997-98, and since plastic products became excisable with effect from 2-6-98, they applied for Central Excise licence and registration under Rule 174 of the CE Rules, 1944. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range II, Coimbatore issued Registration Certificate dated 16-11-98 describing and classifying the product manufactured by the appellants as articles of Plastics falling under sub-heading 3926.90 of the CETA, 1985. On the basis of the above classification, appellants had been filing Central Excise Returns. However, Revenue issued show cause notice dated 28-4-99 for the period from 26-3-95 to 16-11-98 answerable to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore demanding duty of Rs. 90,35,316 on the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted manufacturing the goods, they classified the item as articles of plastics which were not under the Excise net at the relevant time. However, when the articles of plastics were made liable to duty for the first time, the appellants on their own informed the Central Excise Department when their annual turn over exceeded Rs. 2 crores. These facts show that appellants had never any intention to suppress any facts from the department and evade payment of duty. Under these circumstances, invocation of longer period of limitation in the show cause notices and the Commissioner's finding are not at all justified. The learned Consultants prayed that even if the Tribunal holds that the goods are classifiable as furniture, falling under heading 94.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N explanatory notes wherein the scope of furniture has been elaborated. He has also referred to the HSN notes which clarified that the term furniture covers furniture for general use, e.g. Cup boards, show-cases, tables, telephone stands, writing desks, etc. He also cited the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Electronics Ltd., Faridabad v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Range III, Faridabad, reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 350 (P & H) wherein the High Court held that trolly type stands attached to air coolers was classifiable as furniture. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Periwal Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 398 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the longer period of limitation cannot be invoked for the alleged suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, as regards the first show cause notice, the duty demand can be limited only to six months and not for a period of five years. With, regard to the remaining five show cause notices, it would be seen that they were issued in time and hence the demand covered by the remaining five show cause notices are confirmed. However, the total duty demand has to be recomputed in the light of our decision that duty demand has to be confined to only for a period of six months in respect of the first show cause notice covering the period 23-6-95 to 16-11-98. ....