2015 (4) TMI 1112 - AT - Central Excise

Period of limitation - Demand of duty - Sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 - time barred as per ground C-1 of their Memorandum of Appeal which was not argued by adjudicating authority - Held that - it is found that their is a mistake apparent from the face of record and no findings have been given by this Bench. This mistake is required to be rectified by giving suitable observations on the time-bar aspect of Section 11A demand. It is observed from the representing GP.1s that appellant has been showing duty paid through PLA RG-23A Part-II and set off claimed. The amount so debited was also shown collectively in the invoices. These facts are also coming clearly out of the Order-in-Original. Therefore the appellant cannot be said to have any intention to evade payment of duty. Accordingly extended period of five years is not attracted to the demand issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944. ROM with respect to time-barred nature of Section 11A demand is allowed and mistake rectified accordingly.

Summary

Issues: Time-barred nature of demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved a ROM application filed by the appellant challenging Order No. M/10912-10913/2013 passed by the bench. The appellant argued that a demand of &8377; 30,88,632.47 confirmed under Sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was time-barred as per their Memorandum of Appeal. The appellant contended that the duty paid through Set-off, PLA, and RG-23 was duly reflected in price lists, sale invoices, and other documents. The Revenue defended the order invoking the extended period. The bench, after hearing both sides and examining the records, noted a mistake in not addressing the time-bar aspect of the Section 11A demand. They found that the appellant had shown duty paid through various means and had no intention to evade payment. Consequently, they concluded that the demand issued under Section 11A was completely time-barred as the period of demand was from April 1990 to 19-9-1991, and the show cause notice was issued on 1-11-1993, exceeding the statutory time limit. Therefore, the bench allowed the ROM application, rectifying the mistake and acknowledging the time-barred nature of the Section 11A demand.