LAWS(CE)-2005-2-208

GOLD PLAST Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On February 28, 2005
Gold Plast Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are manufacturers of plastic multipurpose stands. On the bona fide belief that the goods are only articles of plastics, which were not leviable to duty at the relevant time, the appellants did not get Central Excise Registration. They were clearing the goods without payment of duty. When the appellants achieved the annual turn over of Rs. 2 crores in 1997 -98, and since plastic products became excisable with effect from 2 -6 -98, they applied for Central Excise licence and registration under Rule 174 of the CE Rules, 1944. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range II, Coimbatore issued Registration Certificate dated 16 -11 -98 describing and classifying the product manufactured by the appellants as articles of Plastics falling under sub -heading 3926.90 of the CETA, 1985. On the basis of the above classification, appellants had been filing Central Excise Returns. However, Revenue issued show cause notice dated 28 -4 -99 for the period from 26 -3 -95 to 16 -11 -98 answerable to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore demanding duty of Rs. 90,35,316 on the ground that the goods manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Chapter Heading 94.03 as articles of furniture and not under 3926.90. Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the CE Act, 1944 was also invoked. Subsequently five more show cause notices were also issued for the period from 17 -11 -98 to 31 -3 -2000. In all total demand was Rs. 1,26,10,770,

(2.) AFTER following the principles of natural justice and examining the issues in depth, the adjudicating authority vide impugned Order -in -Original No. 8/2001(Commr.) dated 3 -4 -2001 held that the impugned goods are classifiable only under Chapter Heading 94.03 as furniture. He has also held that longer period of limitation has been rightly invoked as there were sufficient grounds for the same.

(3.) WE have heard S/Shri S. Kandaswamy and R. Balagopal, learned Consultants for the appellants and Shri A. Jayachandran, learned JDR for the Revenue.