Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Sumilon Tex Pvt. Ltd., Riddhi Moulding ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 10 November, 2003
JUDGMENT Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The above appeals arise out of three separate adjudication orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat involving a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of metallic yam (Zari) falling under CETA sub-heading 5605.00. They filed declarations under Rule 174 read with Notification 11/92 dated 14/05/1992 claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification 76/86-CE dated 10/02/1986 from time to time. The manufacturing process of metallic yarn is that the metallised and metallised lacquered polyester film is slitted in the form of thread on micro slitting machine and then wound on bobbins. The notification in question was available for goods such as handicrafts, etc. Since the process of manufacturing of metallic yarn was not by hand but with the help of machinery (power operated) the department was of the view that the notification did not cover the goods manufactured by the appellants and on this basis demands were raised under show cause notices and adjudicated by the Commissioner, confirming the following amounts of duty and imposed following penalties on the three appellants:
s.No. Appellant Duty (Rs.) Penalty(Rs.)
1.
Sumilon Tex Pvt. Ltd.
2,05,021/-
2,05,021/-
2. Riddhi Moulding Works 94,690/-
94,690/-
3. Siddhi Moulding Works 59,722/-
59,722/-
Hence these appeals.
3. We have heard Shri N.J. Gheewala, learned Consultant and Shri A. Shukla. We find that it is possible to dispose of the appeals on the time bar aspect. The periods of demand and dates of show cause notices are as under:
s.No. Appellant Period of Demand Date of Show Cfiiisc Notice
1.
Sumilon Tex Pvt. Ltd.
01/07/1996 to 02/06/1998 02/08/2000 Riddhi Moulding Works 01/08/1995 to02/06/1998 31/07/2000
2.
3. Siddhi Moulding Works 01/08/1995 to 02/06/1998 31/07/2000
4. The appellants filed declarations from time to time seeking exemption from licensing registration and also seeking exemption from payment of duty under Notification 76/86. In spite of this the adjudicating authority has held that the appellants were guilty of withholding and suppressing vital information regarding manufacture and clearance without which information show cause notices could not have been issued. We do not see any logic in this. When the appellants did not furnish figures of production and clearance on being asked repeatedly by the excise authorities it was (SIC) to the department to seize records and obtain the necessary details for raising duty demand by issue of show cause notice. The finding of the Commissioner on the applicability of extended period of limitation is thus not sustainable. We therefore hold that the demands are barred by limitation, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals without recording any finding on the merits of the issue as to eligibility to the benefit of exemption under the relevant notification.
5. The appeals are thus allowed.