2011 (1) TMI 1232 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing the appeal filed by the respondents.
- Disallowance of abatement claimed by the appellants on CDS freight.
- Reliance on subsequent Certificate rectifying the mistake in the earlier Certificate.
- Time-barring of the demand based on the submission of Certificates and payment of duty.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had favored the respondents. The case revolved around the disallowance of abatement claimed by the appellants on CDS freight for the year 1999-2000. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand disallowing the abatement, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision after considering the subsequent Certificate dated 10-8-2000 which rectified the mistake in the earlier Certificate provided by the C.A. The Revenue contended that the abatement claimed by the appellants was not admissible, and thus, the amount received should be added to the assessable value of the goods. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the subsequent Certificate showed no abatement claimed for CDS freight, and therefore, supported the impugned order.

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Revenue had initially relied on the C.A.'s Certificate dated 23-6-2000, which claimed a deduction for CDS freight. However, the subsequent Certificate dated 10-8-2000 did not include this deduction, leading the Commissioner (Appeals) to accept the rectified Certificate unless proven to be manipulated, which was not averred in the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and found no basis to challenge the subsequent Certificate as a manipulated document, thereby upholding the impugned order.

Furthermore, the Commissioner (Appeals) also addressed the issue of time-barring the demand. It was highlighted that the appellants had submitted both Certificates in the year 2000, and the differential duty was calculated and paid based on the second Certificate in 2001. The show-cause notice alleging suppression with intent to evade duty was issued in 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) deemed the demand to be time-barred due to the submission of Certificates and payment of duty within the relevant time frames. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and disposed of the Cross Objection, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on both the abatement issue and the time-barring of the demand.