2010 (3) TMI 952 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of duty liability under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.
2. Interpretation of the normal period of limitation for recovery of duty.
3. Application of the amended provisions of Section 11A(1) regarding the period of limitation.
4. Adjudication of the case based on legal interpretation.

Analysis:

1. The appeal pertains to the determination of duty liability under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The lower appellate authority had granted partial relief to the respondent by ordering re-determination of duty liability for the normal period of limitation, which was interpreted as "six months" by the original authority. The show-cause notice was issued on 8-5-2001 for recovery of differential duty from 12-5-2000 to 31-3-2001, with the original authority confirming the entire demand of duty and imposing a penalty.

2. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of the normal period of limitation for recovery of duty. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as the assessee had not suppressed or misrepresented any fact. The period of demand, as per the show-cause notice and order-in-original, falls within the amended provisions of Section 11A(1), where the normal period of limitation was changed from six months to one year under the Finance Act, 2000.

3. The application of the amended provisions of Section 11A(1) is crucial in this case. The Board's clarification in Circular No. 540/36/2000-CEX stated that for show-cause notices issued on or after 12-5-2000, the normal period of limitation for recovery of duty is one year. As the show-cause notice in this case was issued on 8-5-01 for the period starting 12-5-2000, the entire dispute period fell within the amended normal period of limitation.

4. The judgment emphasizes the correct legal position regarding the normal period of limitation under Section 11A. It highlights that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the normal period of limitation as six months instead of one year. The issue was deemed a legal one and was addressed on its merits, leading to the setting aside of the lower appellate authority's view and restoration of the order-in-original due to the absence of an appeal by the assessee.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of the normal period of limitation for recovery of duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the application of the amended provisions and the correct legal position in determining duty liability.