2006 (4) TMI 504 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, delivered by Judges Bilal Nazki and G. Chandraiah, addressed the issue of whether a show cause notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was within the prescribed time limit. The Commissioner had held the notice to be timely and decided on the merits, while the Tribunal ruled it was not within time. The dispute arose from a situation where machinery was assembled, disassembled, and reassembled at different units for dispatch to customers, raising questions on the application of Section 11A(1) of the Act or its proviso.

The Court examined Section 11A(1) of the Act, which allows a Central Excise Officer to issue a notice within six months from the relevant date for non-payment or short payment of duty. However, the proviso extends this period to five years in cases involving fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty payment. The Court emphasized that mere fraud or wilful misstatement is insufficient to trigger the proviso; there must be intent to evade duty payment. Notably, it was found that no loss was incurred by the Department, and the duty had been fully paid, leading to the conclusion that the proviso did not apply in this case.

Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no basis for intervention in the order passed. The Central Excise Appeal was dismissed based on these findings. Additionally, related Central Excise Reference Cases were also dismissed as they were connected to the main appeal and followed the same reasoning. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and factual circumstances to resolve the issue of timeliness of the show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.