2009 (5) TMI 848 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985, clearance of goods for captive consumption, demand of duty, interest, and penalty, limitation period for show cause notice, self-assessment scheme, valuation of goods, suppression of facts, extended period of limitation under Sec. 11A, and appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority.

Summary:

Demand of Duty and Limitation Period:
The respondents, manufacturers of excisable goods, were alleged to have short-paid duty for the period from 1-7-2000 to 31-1-2005. A show cause notice was issued regarding the same, but the respondents contended that the notice was barred by limitation as they had been filing returns with the authorities. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for a specific period but dropped the demand for the earlier period due to no intention to evade payment of duty. The revenue appealed against this decision, but the Commissioner (Appeals) also found no intention to evade duty, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal.

Valuation of Goods and Suppression of Facts:
The revenue argued that the extended period for demand of duty was applicable due to the suppression of facts by the respondents regarding the use of goods in their own divisions. However, the respondents maintained that they had been regularly filing returns and providing necessary information, shifting the responsibility to the revenue to seek further details if needed. The Tribunal found that as a Government company, the respondents did not have any mala fide intention to evade duty, especially since the goods were used for captive consumption in electric poles. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue failed to establish a case for demanding duty prior to March, 2004.

Decision:
After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, finding no merit in their arguments. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and that the demand for duty prior to March, 2004 was not justified.

Note:
The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, with Shri T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran, JJ. presiding.