LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH versus M/S. PUNJAB LAMINATES PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH v. M/S. PUNJAB LAMINATES PVT. LTD. AUGUST 24, 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Excise duty-Chapter 39 and Sub-heading No. 4823.90-Exemption C Notification No. 135189-CE dated 12.5.1989-Benefit of - Decorative . laminated sheets-Extended period of limitation under S. 11 A of the Central Excise Act-Invoking of--Conditions precedent-Assessee manufactured paper based decorative laminated sheets-Assessee classified such goods under Chapter 39-But the Revenue contended that such goods should have been D classified under sub-heading No. 4823.90-Manufacturing process disclosed by the assessee when queried by the Revenue-13,85.494 sheets cleared upon giving the benefit of the exemption notification-Excise duty short paid demanded by invoking the extended period of limitation-Appellate Tribunal set aside the demand--Correctness of-Held: At no point of time, the Revenue doubted the correctness or otherwise of the manufacturing process or the E ingredients disclosed by the assessee-The disclosure made by the assessee was acceptable to the Revenue-Its bonafide was never questioned-Decorated laminated sheets fell under Chapter 39 and not under sub-heading No. 4823.90-Hence, it is not permissible to invoke the extended period of limitation-Decision of Appellate Tribunal upheld--Central Excise Act, I944, F S. //A. The respondent-assessee manufactured paper based decorative laminated sheets. The goods manufactured by the respondent were classified under Chapter 39 of the Custom Excise Tariff Act, 1985 whereas according to the appellant-Revenue it should have been classified as sub-heading No. G 4823.90. The respondent-assessee disclosed the manufacturing process when a query was raised by the appellant-Revenue. The authorities had cleared 13,85,494 sheets upon giving the benefit of the notification No. 135/89-CE dated 12.5.1989. The appellant-Revenue issued a show-cause notice to the respondent- H 264 > COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH 1·. PUNJAB LAMINA TES PVT.LTD. 265 assessee as to why central excise duty should not be recovered from it under A Section I IA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking the extended period of limitation available under the proviso to the said Section as the benefit of Notification No. 135/89-CE was willfully availed of by the respondent-assessee. The Commissioner of Excise upheld the show-cause notice. However, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal B filed by the respondent-assessee. Hence the appeal. The following question arose before the Court:- Whether the extended period of limitation envisaged under the proviso appended to Section llA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply to the C facts and circumstances of the present case? Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. A proceeding under Section I IA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 indisputably could be initiated within a period of six months, as the law D thence stood. The period of six months has been extended to one year in the year 2000. The proviso appended to Section I tA of the Act extending the period oflimitation is required to be applied if the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied. The manufacturing process indisputably was disclosed by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the question as regards the classification E of the decorative laminated sheets falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under Chapter heading 48 had been operating in the field. It is also not in dispute that the issue as regards applicability of the exemption in terms of the notification No. 135/89-CE dated 12.5.1989 was incidental to the basic classification of the product. [271-E-G[ CCE v. Bakelite Hylam ltd., (1997[ IO SCC 350 and Decent Laminates Private Ltd. v. CCE, (2002) 146 ELT 487, relied on. 2. At no point of time, the Revenue doubted the correctness or otherwise of the manufacturing process or the ingredients disclosed by the respondent. F The stand of the respondent that the industry as such had adopted the same G manufacturing process and had been extended the benefit of the Exemption Notification of 1989 has not been called in question. If the stand of the manufacturer is correct, there was no reason as to why it should be singled out. [272-A, Bl H 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A CCE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.