9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 1198 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Allegation of duty evasion, invocation of extended period of limitation, revenue-neutrality plea, challenge against demand of duty based on limitation.
Summary: 1. The case involved M/s. Sweet Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. appealing against a demand for Central Excise duty and penalty imposed for not following CAS-4 formula in stock transfers to their sister unit. 2. The appellant argued that the demand of duty was time-barred due to revenue-neutrality as Cenvat credit was available to their sister unit, but the original authority rejected this plea and confirmed the duty demand and penalty. 3. The appellant challenged the demand of duty solely on the ground of limitation, citing revenue-neutrality and relied on certain decisions supporting their stance. 4. The department contended that revenue-neutrality cannot resist the invocation of extended period of limitation, citing relevant case laws to support their argument. 5. The appellant distinguished the case law cited by the department, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the present case regarding inter-unit transfer of goods. 6. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the appellant deliberately did not follow CAS-4 formula despite being made aware, leading to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty payment. 7. The Tribunal disagreed with the appellant's argument of revenue-neutrality against the demand of duty, citing the Supreme Court's decision and upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation. 8. The Tribunal found that the plea of revenue-neutrality was not sufficient to resist the demand of duty, as other grounds existed for invoking the extended period of limitation. 9. Consequently, the challenge against the invocation of the extended period of limitation failed, leading to the applicability of Section 11AB and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, upholding the lower authorities' orders. 10. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal.
|
