2011 (4) TMI 523 - SC - Central Excise

Limitation - Demand - Revenue neutrality - Two-judges Bench of the Tribunal, held that, finding of the Commissioner that Revenue neutrality is not established by the appellants is factually incorrect and, therefore, the order of the Commissioner is required to be set aside - By the said order, the Tribunal held that since it is a case resulting in Revenue neutral situation, therefore, the extended period of limitation is not applicable and the entire demand is barred by limitation - There is no proper discussion and finding with regard to the factual position by the Tribunal in the present case and, therefore,set aside the impugned judgment and order and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for de novo and fresh consideration of the issues which arise for consideration both in respect of the factual position as also the legal position in the light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court and also of the Tribunal - Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the concept of revenue neutrality in the context of central excise duty.
2. Application of the extended period of limitation in central excise cases.
3. Consideration of factual and legal aspects in tribunal judgments.

Interpretation of Revenue Neutrality:
The Supreme Court analyzed a case where the Tribunal held that the finding of the Commissioner regarding revenue neutrality was factually incorrect. The Tribunal referred to a Larger Bench decision emphasizing that revenue neutrality must be established in each case, not just by showing an alternate scheme. The Court highlighted the need to demonstrate a revenue-neutral situation concerning the credit available to the assessee, not just the buyer of the manufactured goods. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision lacked a proper discussion of all factual issues, especially regarding clauses (a), (b), and (d) of the Larger Bench decision.

Application of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Court referred to various judgments to discuss the application of the extended period of limitation in central excise cases. It cited cases like International Auto Ltd., Amco Batteries Ltd., and others to emphasize the principles and circumstances under which the extended period of limitation would be applicable. The Court noted that the Tribunal did not adequately discuss the factual position in the case at hand. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of the relevant legal precedents.

Consideration of Factual and Legal Aspects:
The Court directed the Tribunal to conduct a de novo and fresh consideration of the issues arising in the case, both factually and legally. It instructed the Tribunal to review the matter expeditiously and in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the claims and disputes between the parties. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the appeals, with each party bearing its own costs.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the Supreme Court's meticulous review of the interpretation of revenue neutrality, the application of the extended period of limitation, and the importance of considering both factual and legal aspects in tribunal judgments.