Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1302 - CESTAT MUMBAIExtended period of limitation - Debonding of an EOU - allegation of short-paid duty at the time of De-bonding - wrongful availment of duty concessions vide Central Excise Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31st March 2003 read with Para 6.8 of FTP - penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellants have made complete declaration in respect of their “finished goods” as well ‘WIP - Indigenous” while making the request for de-bonding. These were examined and verified by the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities while issuing the “No Dues Certificate” to the appellant. Even the figures stated in the declaration made by the appellant in their declaration, no dues certificate issued by the authorities do tally. Subsequent to issue of the no due certificate by the jurisdictional officer, the revenue could not have proceeded to issue the show cause notice dated 09.02.2016, by taking the same figures as declared by the appellant to the jurisdictional authorities as early as in 2013. These figures also are reflected in the no dues certificate issued by the jurisdictional authorities. On the basis of the ‘No Dues Certificate” issued by the concerned jurisdictional authorities, Development Commissioner has issued the Final Debonding Order. If it is the case of the revenue that “No Dues Certificate” was obtained by the appellant by taking recourse to suppression. misstatement, misdeclaration, fraud, connivance or in contravention of the provisions of the law, which would have led to invocation of extended period of limitation as provided for by Section 11 A of the Central excise Act, 1944, revenue ought to have informed the Development commissioner and requested for initiation of proceeding against the appellants in terms of Foreign Trade Development Act. There are no ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation as per Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 to be present in this case. Since demand cannot be sustained on the issue of limitation we do not discuss the issue on the merits. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|