COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. 20 MICRONS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the extended period of time -limit under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is invocable for demanding the duty from M/s. 20 Microns Ltd.

(2.) Shri A.S. Bedi, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of Microns size powdered calcium carbonate, talc, dolomite, and other similar products coated and uncoated; that they were availing exemption from payment of duty by classifying the product under Heading 25.05 and availing the exemption under Notification No. 70/95 -C.E., dated 16 -3 -95; that the Additional Commissioner under Order -in -Original No. 17/02, dated 3 -4 -2002 classified their products under sub -heading 3824.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, and confirmed the demand of duty for the period 1 -5 -1998 to 31 -7 -1999 and imposed penalty; that on Appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order had set aside the demand being time -barred. The learned Senior Departmental Representative, further, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondents had filed declaration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in which they had claimed that natural minerals are classifiable under Heading 25.05 and are exempted from duty under Notification No. 70/95; that infact in the declaration filed by the respondents they had not correctly disclosed full description of the goods manufactured by them; that in the column for "full description of the goods" they had mentioned "N. A. as we are processing only as per processing list enclosed"; that they had not given description of the goods as required; that in the declaration it had been mentioned by them that micronised minerals were coated with different coating agents and by carrying out the other process of coating, no new products came into existence which is not correct; that the investigations carried out by the Department has brought to the knowledge that chemically coated micronised minerals have distinct character, property and use; that according to the process of manufacture given in the Declaration, the coating agent improves the quality of fillers whereas on investigation it was found that the coating results into a distinct commodity or different property and nature; that thus the claim made in the declaration is misstatement and accordingly larger period of time -limit is invocable for demanding the duty. He also mentioned that the respondents have a number of units at different locations in the country. They had not disclosed in the declaration that they are having other units also; that this was done with intent to suppress the turnover of other factories for commutation of exemption limit to facilitate evasion of duty.

(3.) Opposing the Appeal, Shri H.D. Dave, learned Advocate submitted that all finished excisable goods namely uncoated and coated micronised minerals along with brand name had been specified in the declaration filed by them; that stepwise details of manufacturing process had been specified in the Annexure to the declaration; that accordingly, there is no question of any suppression of fact or misstatement; that if the Central Excise authorities wanted to know more about the coated micronised minerals, they could have carried out the investigation after they have filed the declaration; that it is not open to Revenue to allege suppression or misstatement by them; that further, coating of uncoated micronised minerals only improves the quality of micronised minerals as it is easy to distribute such a coated minerals in the process undertaken by the buyers; that coating of a mineral by a coating agent is not a process of manufacture as both the products - coated or uncoated are bought as minerals by common user.