2006 (4) TMI 524 - SC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the Final Order of the Tribunal allowing the appeals filed by the assessees-respondents.
2. Recovery of differential duty on home clearances.
3. Debit/reversal of Modvat credit.
4. Confiscation of assets.
5. Imposition of penalties.
6. Invocation of extended period of limitation based on alleged suppression of facts by the respondents.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court heard statutory appeals filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Final Order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai. The Tribunal had allowed the appeals filed by the assessees-respondents, setting aside the original order and ruling that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the absence of suppression of facts by the respondents.

2. The respondents were served with a show cause notice demanding the recovery of a differential duty amount on home clearances valued during a specific period. The order-in-original confirmed the demand, citing suppression of facts by the respondents as the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation. However, the Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression of facts by the respondents after reviewing all evidence presented.

3. Additionally, the show cause notice also included directives for the debit/reversal of Modvat credit taken at a higher rate, confiscation of assets, and imposition of penalties on the parties involved. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals was based on the factual finding that there was no suppression of facts by the respondents, thereby negating the department's entitlement to invoke the extended period of limitation.

4. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings as a factual determination that did not warrant interference. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, with each party instructed to bear their respective costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual determinations in such cases and reiterated the principle of bearing costs individually in legal proceedings.