Supreme Court of India
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Kartik Steels Limited on 24 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(87)ECC707, 2003(153)ELT496(SC), (2003)11SCC394, AIRONLINE 2003 SC 104, (2003) 153 ELT 496 2003 (11) SCC 394, 2003 (11) SCC 394
Bench: M.B. Shah, D.M. Dharmadhikari, Arun Kumar
ORDER
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 11th September 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT for short), South Zonal Bench at Chennai in Appeal No. E/R-331 of 1997. That appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai on the grounds that from the available records, it was noticed that respondent M/s. Kartik Steels Limited in their letter dated 19th January 1994 had informed that they were engaged in manufacture of steel and alloy steel castings from February 1982; that the metal constituents used in the manufacture of the said castings are carbons, nickel, manganese, sulphur, phosphorus, silicon, chromium, co-lumbium, titanium, molybdenum, copper and vanadium; that 75% of their production is without nickel and chromium and the balance 25% production would be with Nickel and Chromium. It was also submitted that respondent were manufacturing and clearing the goods in question for which they have not filed any classification list for the goods where the chromium predominates other than metals which were classifiable under heading 8112.00 and continued to clear the manufactured articles under heading 7325.00.
2. Considering the facts, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the Commissioner before dropping the show cause notice has gone into the factual position and has correctly held that the classification list has been approved finally and the RT-12 assessments were also finalised and if they had any doubt about the nature of goods, it was for the department to have taken any representative sample and sent it to the Chemical Examiner for test, before approving the classification list. Therefore the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner and the same was confirmed. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. That order is challenged in this appeal.
3. From the facts it is clear that the Commissioner after taking into consideration all the facts has arrived at the conclusion that there was no question of suppression on the part of respondent and, therefore, provisions of Section 11A for invoking extended period of limitation was not applicable.
4. It is to be noted that Tribunal has not considered whether extended period of limitation as provided in first proviso to Section 11A(1) would be applicable in the present case. The Tribunal was required to re-appreciate and decide the said, issue on merits. In the result, die appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding it on merits with regard to the applicability of first proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Customs Act. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.