2008 (7) TMI 739 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand and penalty confirmation against the appellant.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s. Rapicut Carbides Ltd. against an Order-in-Appeal confirming duty demand and penalty. The main issue revolved around the merger of M/s. Gujarat Drillwell Pvt. Ltd. with Rapicut Carbides Ltd. The appellant contended that the merger was effective from 30-3-93 upon approval by the High Court, and they had duly informed the department about it. However, the department issued a show cause notice proposing to deny the concessional rate of duty availed by Gujarat Drillwell Pvt. Ltd. invoking an extended period.

The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the contention that the merger was sanctioned on 26-11-93. The Commissioner upheld the duty demand for the period from 1-4-93 to 17-1-94, justifying the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A. The appellant argued that the amalgamation was proposed w.e.f. 30-3-93, contesting the demand on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the High Court approved the amalgamation on 30-12-93, and the appellant applied for an amendment in the registration certificate on 17-1-94, providing all relevant documents.

The Tribunal found that the date of amalgamation approved by the High Court, i.e., 30-3-93, was crucial for statutory purposes. The duty liability towards differential duty was deemed to have arisen on 17-1-94 when the department was informed. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's reasoning for invoking suppression, as the appellant had provided necessary information and had no intention to evade duty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed concerning the penalty and the application of the extended period under Section 11A.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the penalty and the extended period application under Section 11A were not justified in this case. The judgment highlighted the importance of the High Court's approval date for determining statutory obligations and rejected the department's argument of suppression due to the appellant's proactive communication and compliance with necessary procedures.