Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Sun Moulding Works, Urea

1. notices issued to each of the respondents before us demanded duty on the product manufactured by each of them on the ground that it was melamine formaldehyde resin classifiable under item 15a(1) of the central excise tariff as a result of which, value of clearance of each of these manufacturers of the goods classifiable under this item exceeding the limit provided in notification 80/83 rendering it not applicable. in the orders impugned before us by the commissioner, the adjudicating collector has found that the goods were not classifiable under 15a(2). he found that it had not reached the stage of polymerisation justifying classification as plastic.2. although considerable arguments were advanced by both sides as to the classification, we are of the view the appeals can be disposed of on limitation. the main basis of the department's case for classifying the goods under item 15a(1) is the report dated 28.6.83 of the departments chemical examiner at vadodara finding the goods to be melamine formaldehyde. notice to show cause is dated 17.2.88 and deals with period 1983 and 1987. in invoking the extended period, the department has alleged suppression of facts and wilful misrepresentation.3. by the department's own account, it came to know in june 1983 tat the goods, which the manufacturer had claimed to be chemicals classifiable under item 68, were classifiable under item 15a(1). since it was in the possession of this fact, the department could not have been mislead and subsequently by misrepresentation or suppression.therefore the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of section 11a was not available to the department, the notice is therefore barred by limitation.