ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the order of CCE (Appeals) who after considering the issues found:
“5. I have gone through the records and Photographs of the said goods and also discussed regarding their design, quality etc with the appellants during personal hearing. I find that though the said goods are predominantly made by hand, they do not reflect any substantial artistic work in the nature of ornamentation graced with visual appeal. The furniture are also not graced with in lay work and in lay work if any are very minimal and is not of any substantial nature. Merely because back rest of chairs, or legs of tables are curved and ribbed, these items do not became an item of handicraft. It is relevant to note that these furniture items are being manufactured on mass scale for keeping them in the hundreds of the rooms of the hotel and therefore these furniture items cannot be visualised as “handicrafts”. One can see furniture of such design and artistry, in many of the furniture shop showroom in plenty. Hence these furniture cannot be treated as “handicrafts.” Moreover there is no documentary evidence on the record showing that the said goods are known & sold as handicrafts in the market. Hence, they are not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 76/86 dt 10.2.86.
6. Further, the appellants, in their appeal, prayed for the SS1 exemption under Notification No. 8/99CE dt 28.2.99 for the financial year 1999-2000. This is not available to them as the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption during the preceding financial year 1998-99 exceeded Rs. 300 lakhs after including value of goods claimed as handicrafts in the value of other goods cleared during 1998-99.
7. Coming to the second issue i.e. whether the Show Cause Notice Stands legality of the provisions of proviso to Section 11A (1) of CETA, 1944, the appellants contention that there was no suppression of facts or misdeclaration/misstatement is sustainable. I find that every information/details about the goods, their production, clearances etc were within the knowledge of the Central Excise department and therefore Show Cause Notice issued by the Range Superintendent cannot stand the legality for the extended period. However, the duty liability for the month of October 99 to March 2000 which is within time limit of one year under Section 11A (1) cannot be ignored by the appellants and should be paid as demanded by the Range Superintendent. The duty liability shall be requantified by the lower adjudicating authority taking into consideration the date of delivery of the Show Cause Notice to the appellants and Section 11A of CEA as amended by Clause 97 of the Finance Act, 2000.”
And thereafter modified the order-in-original dated 26.9.2001 and disposed off the appeal before him.
2. After hearing both sides, and considering the issues, it is found –
a) as regards the powers of the Superintendent to issue notice dated 22.5.2000 invoking the proviso to Section 11A (1) to demand duty during the period 1.10.1999 to 31.3.2000, it is seen from para 7 of the order extracted hereinabove, that CCE, (Appeals) has concluded that the Show Cause Notice cannot stand the legality for the extended period. This would be upholding the plea of the appellant about the jurisdiction. The further finding on duty liability from October 1999 to March 2000 due to amendment of Section 11 A (1) and proviso by Section 97 of Finance Act 2000 (70 of 1988) with effect from 12.5.2000, the demands for this period could be determined by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 11A (1). Therefore, nothing amiss is found in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the duty for the period within the time frame of Section 11A (1). Relying upon Padmini Products (1989 (43) ELT 195 (para 8).
b) On merits, it is found that the Commissioner has found the entities on inspection to be not handicrafts as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case CCE v. Louis Shoppe 1996 (83) ELT 13 (SC). No material now is adduced to come up to a finding as to how the tests prescribed are being incorrectly applied. There is therefore no ground to upset the order impugned.
3. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court on 18/06/2003)