2003 (7) TMI 615 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise for alleged evasion of excise duty by mis-declaration of place of removal; Contention on assessable value and limitation period for demand of differential duty; Allegation of mis-declaration in declaration filed under Rule 173C(3A); Examination of facts and suppression of fact by appellant; Pending show cause notice for the same allegation for a different period.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing pre-stressed cement concrete pipes, challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise alleging evasion of excise duty by mis-declaring the place of removal. The dispute centered around whether the sale of concrete pipes occurred at the factory gate, affecting the assessable value. The Commissioner invoked an extended limitation period due to mis-declaration under Rule 173C(3A). The appellant argued on merit and limitation, contending that the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal acknowledged the merit of the limitation argument, leading to the disposal of the appeal without delving into the substantive contentions.

The Tribunal noted that the Department had issued multiple show cause notices for the same allegation, with one pending adjudication. It observed that the appellant had diligently provided all relevant contract details to the excise authorities, including price breakdowns showing no duty paid on freight. The appellant's submissions, supported by documents like RT 12 Returns and excise invoices, demonstrated proper record-keeping and transparency. The Tribunal emphasized the Department's duty to thoroughly examine all facts before alleging evasion. Ultimately, it concluded that the Department failed to establish any suppression of facts by the appellant with an intent to evade duty, rendering the demand for the specified period time-barred.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the impugned order for the period in question. It clarified that the pending proceedings for a subsequent period would proceed on merit. The judgment highlighted the importance of factual examination and transparency in excise matters, emphasizing the burden on the Department to prove any allegations of evasion convincingly.