Judgment:
1. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed by Add. Collector by his order dated 31-8-1989 denying them benefit of Notification No. 54/80-CE., dated 13-5-1980 as amended from time to time and confirming duty demand of Rs. 14,762/- on the ground that the runners and risers used by them for manufacture of steel castings were not entitled for the benefit of the notification.
2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate points out that they have been filing the classification list from time to time and the same had been approved. The show cause notice issued under Section 11A for the period 31-2-1981 to 14-5-1982 does not spelt out the reasons of the appellants suppressing facts with an intention to evade duty.
Therefore, it is his submission that as the appellants themselves were given to understand that the use of runners and risers in manufacture of steel castings were entitled for the benefit in terms of credit Notification 67/73-C.E., dated 19-5-1973. They were under the bona fide belief that the same was entitled for the benefit. He cited judgment rendered in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. C.C.E., Bombay 1995 (6) RLT 333 (S.C.) in support of his contention that extended period cannot be invoked in the present case. He also drew strength at the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Engineering & Commercial Agencies v.C.C., Madras -1996(82) E.L.T. 295 (Madras) wherein it has been held that longer period of limitation is not invokable in case of suppression simplicitor. He further points out that otherwise they were entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 152/77 dated 18-6-1977 as amended from time to time which granted exemption to iron and steel products falling under Item 26AA in respect of manufacture of steel castings and the effective rate of duty is Rs. 200 P.M.T. It is the submission that they were clearing the goods at Rs. 200 P.M.T. and there was no factual short levy for recovery in terms of this Notification. He points out that this Notification 152/77 is without any conditions and therefore, the benefit has to be straightway granted to them.
3. Ld. DR reiterated the departmental stand and the reasoning adopted by the Addl. Collector.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we see lot of force in submissions made by ld. Advocate. Notwithstanding the findings given by the ld. Collector with regard to use of runners and risers in the manufacture of steel castings in terms of Notification 54/80-C.E., we notice that the appellants are entitled for the benefit in terms of Notification 152/77-C.E. which is without any conditions. They have been paying effective rate of duty @ Rs. 200 P.M.T. and clearing the same. Therefore, in terms of this Notification 152/77, there is no short levy for recovery. It is also noticed that the show cause notice does not spell out the reasons of suppression with intent to evade duty nor Rule 173 has been invoked and the appellants have not been imposed with any penalty. He has placed trade notice of Chandigarh Collectorate clarifying the grant of benefit in respect of usage of internal scrap generated in electric furnace units for further manufacture of steel castings. In view of this trade notice, their existed bona fide belief of the entitlement of the benefit of Notification. Further, the Department has been approving the Classification List from time to time and therefore, there is no ground for invoking proviso to Section 11 A, of the Act. Be that as it may, we notice that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification 157/77-C.E. and therefore, there was no cause for invoking the Notification 54/80-C.E. Without going into the correctness of the findings rendered in respect of Notification 54/80-C.E., we are of the view that the appellants are entitled otherwise for the benefit under Notification 152/77-CE.5. In that view of the matter and in view of the reasons given by us we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.