Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (9) TMI 462 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Demand of duty raised after the expiry of the limitation period. 2. Interpretation of relevant date for clandestine removal. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with the issue of demand of duty raised after the expiration of the limitation period. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty demand as it was raised after five years. The appellant argued that the date of detection of the clandestine removal should be considered the relevant date. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that there is no defined relevant date linked to the detection of the offense. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the demand raised beyond the statutory five-year limit is time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty or interest on the evaded duty can be imposed in such cases due to the limitation period being exceeded. 2. The second issue pertains to the interpretation of the relevant date for clandestine removal. The revenue contended that the date of detection of the clandestine removal should be deemed the relevant date. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument. It concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that since there is no specific definition of the relevant date concerning the detection of the offense, the demand raised after the prescribed five-year period is unequivocally time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the demand made beyond the statutory limitation is not sustainable in law. In summary, the judgment clarifies that demands of duty raised after the expiry of the limitation period are invalid and barred by law. It underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for raising duty demands, as outlined in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision highlights the significance of timely compliance with legal provisions to avoid the imposition of penalties or interest on evaded duties.
|