9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (11) TMI 663 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of demand against the respondents and penalties imposed upon them being set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of limitation, despite holding against the respondents on merits. Details of the judgment: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the demand against the respondents was time-barred, as the activities of the respondents were within the knowledge of the department, supported by various documents such as declarations, returns, invoices, and audit reports. The case was based on statements and records recovered during investigation, not seizure. The demand was calculated based on Rule 52 invoices and a private diary for free replacements. The appellants argued that they were not obligated to declare the brand name on their goods as per Rule 173B. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the department had sufficient information through filed invoices and returns, making the allegation of suppression unfounded. The order emphasized that the department had multiple opportunities to notice the alleged discrepancies but failed to do so, leading to the conclusion that the demand was time-barred. The Revenue contended that the brand name usage was not declared in the classification list under Rule 173B, constituting a misstatement warranting the longer period of limitation. However, the Tribunal found no rebuttal to the factual position presented by the Commissioner (Appeals), which highlighted the consistent filing of invoices, returns, and approvals by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the department's case relied heavily on the scrutiny of filed invoices. It was established that the appellants believed they were entitled to use the brand name and had no intention to mislead. The absence of mala fide intent to evade duty payment was a crucial factor in rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, stating that there was no infirmity in the decision. The judgment was pronounced on 10-11-2006.
|
