Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Itc Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 3 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(137)ELT829(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty and penalty amount, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. Vide the impugned orders modvat credit of Rs.8,27,125.00 availed by the appellant in respect of capital goods Cross Direction Basis Weight Control was denied on the ground that the same is not covered by the definition of capital goods under rule 57Q prior to 16.3.95 inasmuch as heading 90.32 came to be specifically mentioned under rule 57Q vide notfn. no. 11/95-CE(NT) dt.16.3.95.
3. Shri J.P. Khaitan, ld. adv. appearing for the appellant, apart from arguing on the merits of the case, also submits that the deemed in question is barred by limitation. Drawing my attention to the declaration made by them on 9.8.94 he submits that the goods were declared as 'Cross Direction Bases Weight Control' with sub-heading declared as 9032.80. Under the remarks column it was mentioned as PM-1. He submits that the goods have been described in the invoice issued by the manufacturer as "Cross Direction Basis Weight Control for PM-1 (linear stapper system)". He submits that the said invoice was submitted to their jurisdictional central excise authorities along with RG-23C part-I & II register at the time of filing of returns. As such he submits that the entire case were before the Revenue. In fact the show cause notice issued on 2.1.96 has been issued on the same very set of facts and records maintained by them. In this scenario he submits that the demand in question is barred by limitation of six months as provided under rule 57U.
4. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld.SDR appearing for the Revenue defends the orders passed by the authorities below and submits that the appellants have not given the function of the capital goods and have thus intentionally suppressed the relevant information for the Revenue.
5. After hearing both the sides I find that there is no disputes about the factum of filing of declaration on 9.8.94 describing the capital goods as Cross Direction Basis Weight Control. In the said declaration the appellant had given the information as regards the invoice, the purchase order placed by them and the classification of the goods in question. The goods have been described in the invoice by the same time. If the authorities entertained any doubt about the functioning of the said capital goods, they were within their jurisdiction and powers to call for more information from the appellant. The raise the demand after a period of two years on the same set of records and documents without any new factor coming to light reflects upon the casual attitude of the Central excise authorities and blaming the assessees subsequently with suppression on misstatement so as to justify their action of invocation of longer period of limitation. I find from the orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner as also by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants' plea of limitation has been disposed of by one line observation that they have given insufficient and misleading information with intent to suppress the factual position. Neither authority has discussed as to how the information given by the appellant was insufficient or misleading. In these circumstances, without going into the merit of the case I hold that the demand is barred by limitation. The impugned orders are thus set aside and allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
6. Dictated in the court.