2003 (7) TMI 602 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty demand resisted on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The appellant resisted the duty demand based on the ground of limitation, arguing that the extended period allowed under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invoked due to alleged wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The appellants contended that they had paid the entire duty as per the approved assessable values and there was no intention to evade payment. They claimed that the assessable value should be calculated based on manufacturing cost and profit, with deductions for selling expenses and profits. The authorities alleged suppression of facts based on realizations under debit notes for non-manufacturing activities like freight, charges, and insurance. The appellant argued that these realizations were irrelevant to the assessable value based on manufacturing cost and profit. They had also informed the Central Excise Authorities about private records, including service charges debit notes, which they claimed showed no intent to evade duty.

The appellant referred to a previous judgment by the Delhi High Court in their case regarding the valuation of goods, where the method of calculating assessable value based on manufacturing cost and profit was disclosed and approved. The Tribunal reviewed the records and heard the arguments, agreeing with the appellant's submission on limitation. They found that the assessment was done in accordance with approved assessable values based on manufacturing cost and profit, which were fully disclosed to the authorities. The Tribunal concluded that post-manufacturing costs like freight and expenses were irrelevant to the assessment based on manufacturing cost and profit. The non-disclosure of such costs could not be considered suppression of facts to evade duty, especially since the authorities were informed about service charges debit notes. The Tribunal held that the duty demand was set aside as it was hit by limitation, accepting the appellant's contention and allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.