Final Order No. 83/2000-A arising from in Appeal No. E/2749/87-A. Case: Frick India Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
|Final Order No. 83/2000-A arising from in Appeal No. E/2749/87-A
|For Appellant: Shri C. Harishankar, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR.
|K. Sreedharan, President and Shri C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
|Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11A
|2000 (119) ELT 676 (Tribunal)
|February 18, 2000
|CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
K. Sreedharan, President, (New Delhi)
Appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances falling under Item 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Those goods are classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department got information that manufacturers were grossly undervaluing the products and thereby evading payment of duty. Modus operandi adopted by them was to divert larger portion of the actual value to the accessories. On account of this, the manufacturer evaded duty to the tune of Rs. 4,45,19,321.17 during the period from 1-3-1981 to 24-8-1985. Show cause notice dated 31-3-1986 was issued requiring the manufacturer to show cause why the said amount should not be claimed as differential duty. Detailed reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the manufacturer. After considering the contentions raised the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,91,15,883.53. This order of the adjudicating authority is under challenge.
Learned Counsel representing the appellant submitted that all clearances effected by the appellant, of the goods were pursuant to classification and price lists approved by the departmental authorities. Even for the period subsequent to that covered by the show cause notice clearances were effected on identical terms based on approved classification and price list. In spite of the show cause notice issued, which resulted in the impugned order, according to the learned Counsel representing the appellant, identical classification and price lists were approved for clearances in relation to later periods. Since all the clearances of the goods manufactured were in strict compliance with the classification and price lists approved by the Department, the demand of differential duty is clearly illegal. In support of this argument, learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. - 1999 (113) ELT 353...
To continue readingRequest your trial