2015 (9) TMI 1541 - HC - Central Excise

Rescinding of N/N. 17/98-C.E. dated 18-7-1998 - demand raised on account of rescinded notification - time limitation - Held that - there was no deliberate attempt to evade payment of Excise duty and there was no suppression or misrepresentation of any fact. The SCN for raising demand was clearly issued more than one year and four months after supply of the figures by the respondent - no substantial question of fact arises in the present case and the matter has been decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances while keeping in mind that a SCN has been issued after a period of six months from the date of knowledge - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Excise duty levy and penalty imposition within the period of limitation.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the imposition of Excise duty and penalty within the period of limitation. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing edible products, was served a show cause notice for not paying duty on certain products for a specific period. The appellant argued that the demand raised was within the period of limitation and the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The relevant provision, Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was cited, which allows a Central Excise Officer to serve a notice within six months from the relevant date in case of duty evasion. The appellant contended that if there was misrepresentation or concealment, the department could raise a demand within five years under the proviso to Section 11A(1).

The Court noted that the notice should be served within six months from the relevant date, which is the date of knowledge. The respondent had promptly supplied information to the appellant upon request. The appellant argued that if there was misrepresentation or concealment, the department could raise a demand within five years. However, the Court found that in this case, as the levy was introduced for the first time and then withdrawn shortly after, the respondent believed the duty was no longer applicable. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that there was no deliberate attempt to evade duty and no suppression of facts. The show cause notice was issued more than a year after the information was supplied by the respondent.

The Court held that no substantial question of fact arose in the case, and it was decided based on the specific facts and circumstances. The Court emphasized that the show cause notice was issued after six months from the date of knowledge. Therefore, the appeal was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.