2011 (1) TMI 1004 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty, interest and penalty - extended time of limitation invoked - Duty liability on work in progress goods at the time of final de-bonding order - assessee paid @ 16.48% instead of 34.13% as required under Section 3 (1) (b) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - It is the duty of the officer, who give no dues certificate to verify the contents whether any dues liability is pending against the assessee or he has correctly declared the true facts for de-bonding of unit. When the concerned officer has de-bonded the unit along with no dues certificate, allegation of suppression cannot be alleged against the respondents in this case - no infirmity with the impugned order, wherein the lower appellate authority has held that facts that how the extended period under Section 11A(1) is invocable in the above circumstances, the demand raised against the respondent is time barred . order is upheld, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

Issues:
1. Claim on the ground of limitation allowed by lower appellate authority.
2. Allegation of suppression of material fact by respondent.
3. Invocability of extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1).

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question arose from an order where the lower appellate authority allowed the party's claim based on the ground of limitation. The case involved a show-cause notice issued to the respondents for allegedly not correctly discharging duty liability on work in progress goods at the time of final de-bonding order. The respondents paid duty at 16.48% instead of the required 34.13% under Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, interest, and imposed a penalty. However, the lower appellate authority rejected the order, stating that the extended period was not invocable in this scenario, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal against this decision.

2. During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the extended period of limitation should be invoked as the respondent had allegedly suppressed material facts during the de-bonding of the unit. The Revenue contended that the respondent's actions warranted the extended period to be applicable. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that when the unit was de-bonded and a no dues certificate was issued to the respondent, it was the duty of the officer granting the certificate to verify if any dues liability was pending or if the true facts were correctly declared. The Tribunal concluded that since the officer had issued the no dues certificate without verifying any pending dues, the allegation of suppression could not be upheld against the respondents. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, stating that the demand raised against the respondent was time-barred under Section 11A(1).

3. In the final analysis, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions made by the Revenue, found no infirmity with the lower appellate authority's decision. It was determined that the facts of the case did not support the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(1) due to the issuance of a no dues certificate without verifying any pending dues against the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision in favor of the respondent.

← Previous Next →