2015 (4) TMI 1141 - HC - Central Excise

Period of limitation - Demand - non- payment of Central Excise Duty for the period 29.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 - SCN issued on 22.4.2013 - Held that - although there are about dozen grounds taken in the appeal, but none specifically relates to any suppression of facts by the assessee. Even the questions of law which have been framed in the appeal do not specifically relate to suppression of facts. Admittedly, the appellant had paid the Central Excise Duty to the tune of ₹ 44 crores for the period 1.4.2011 to 31. 3.2013. If there was any default in deposit of duty for the period prior to 1.4.2011, the assessee could have been issued notice within the statutory period as provided under Section 11A of the Act, which in normal course would be one year, and five years in cases falling under sub-Section (4). In the absence of appellant having been able to satisfy the Tribunal on facts that the present case falls within sub- Section (4) of Section 11, the notice issued to the respondent beyond the period of one year cannot be justified in law. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by CESTAT regarding payment of Central Excise Duty beyond prescribed period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved a Public Sector Undertaking manufacturing certain goods falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute centered around the payment of Central Excise Duty for the period 29.4.2010 to 31.3.2011, with a show cause notice issued on 22.4.2013. The key question was whether the notice issued beyond the one-year limit prescribed by Section 11A of the Act was valid.

After an amendment in the Finance Act, 2011, the respondent was liable to pay duty from 29.4.2010, which they started paying from 1.4.2011. The revenue claimed non-payment for the period in question and issued the notice beyond the one-year limit. The relevant sections of the Central Excise Act, specifically Section 11A(1) and (4), were crucial in determining the validity of the notice.

Section 11A(4) allowed for a notice within five years in cases involving fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with intent to evade duty. The appellant argued for the extended period due to suppression of facts, but the Tribunal disagreed, finding no grounds for invoking the extended period.

Despite multiple grounds raised in the appeal, none specifically addressed suppression of facts by the assessee. The Tribunal's factual finding that the extended period was not warranted, coupled with the lack of specific grounds in this regard, led the Court to dismiss the appeals. The Court held that as the appellant failed to demonstrate the case falling under Section 11A(4), the notice issued beyond one year was not legally justified.

Ultimately, the Court found no substantial question of law requiring determination and dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision.