Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Castrol India Ltd. vs Cce on 18 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(83)ECC323
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed against a duty demand of about Rs. 1.3 Lakhs and imposition, of a penalty of Rs. 1.3. Lakhs on the appellants.
2. The duty demand is for the period 1975 to 1980 in respect of "Sulphurised Karanja Oil" captively consumed by the appellants. The demand has been confirmed by invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act inasmuch as the demand-cum-show cause notice was not raised within the normal period of six months stipulated in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
3. The appellants have challenged the order on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. With regard to the limitation, it is their submission that this is not a case involving suppression or misstatement of facts and, therefore, the proviso to Section 11A had no application. The appeal clearly brings out that from 1975 onwards, the appellants had filed classification lists before the jurisdictional central excise authorities. Copies of such classification lists and correspondence on the same between the jurisdictional authorities and the appellants have also been enclosed along with the appeal. Only in the classification list of 1978. Karanja Oil came to a mentioned under the category of "no manufacture". On the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the goods in question were exempt under Notification No. 58/75 dated 1.3.75 as amended by Notification No. 118/75 dated 30.4.75 in case it was captively consumed. It is the appellant's case that the entire quantity of Sulphurised Karanja Oil produced by them was captively consumed and records kept by the appellants established this. It is their submission that the impugned order has been passed without any regard to the fact that the goods in question were thus, fully exempt and no duty was payable by the appellants.
4. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is seen that the Sulphurised Karanja Oil found specific mention at SI. No. 130 of the classification list for the year 1975. The item is mentioned in the classification list in the subsequent years also. The central excise authorities had also undertaken correspondence on the subject with the appellants. From this, it is clear that the authorities were fully aware of the fact that the appellants were manufacturing Sulphurised Karanja Oil. Therefore, this is not a case where the extended period in terms of proviso to Section 11A could be invoked. The demand is liable to the set aside on this ground alone. Further, the goods is question were also exempt in terms of Notification No. 58/75 dated 1.3.75 as amended provided the goods were captively consumed. The appellants have claimed that the goods had been so consumed. The demand has been confirmed without investigating this claim also.
5. In view of the position mentioned above, we hold that the duty demand and imposition of penalty as made under the impugned order are not sustainable. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.