2011 (5) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - penalty on the finding that the activities undertaken by the appellant such as cutting, bending, punching on duty paid articles, plates or channels amount to manufacture - time bar - During the relevant period, various decisions of the Tribunal were to the effect that such activity of cutting, bending, and punching duty paid articles, plates or channels does not amount to manufacture Held that - demand raised beyond the period of limitation, by invoking extended period, is barred, irrespective of the fact as to whether the appellants themselves have undertaken the said activity or not, no justification for imposition of penalty on the appellant, order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty and penalty against the appellant for manufacturing activities.
2. Dispute regarding whether the processes were carried out by the appellant or through a job worker.
3. Time bar issue due to delayed Show Cause Notice.
4. Invocation of extended period for demand beyond the limitation period.
5. Applicability of penalty on the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal confirmed a duty of Rs. 41,04,217 against the appellant for manufacturing activities like cutting, bending, and punching on duty paid articles, plates, or channels. The issue was settled against the appellant by a Larger Bench precedent. However, the appeal was considered on the point of time bar due to the Show Cause Notice being issued after the relevant period.

2. There was a dispute whether the appellant themselves carried out the manufacturing processes or utilized a job worker. The Tribunal focused on the time bar issue rather than delving into the factual disputes regarding the execution of the activities.

3. The Show Cause Notice was issued in 2003 for the period 1998-2000, raising concerns about the invocation of the extended period for demand. Various decisions during the relevant period did not consider the activities as manufacturing. The Tribunal emphasized that the demand beyond the limitation period was barred due to the evolving legal interpretations.

4. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents where the invocation of extended period was not justified when there were divergent views on excisability, and the appellant had a bona fide belief based on prevailing decisions favoring the assessee. The demand was quashed based on the issue of limitation, regardless of whether the appellant directly performed the activities in question.

5. Given the finding that the demand was time-barred, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the limitation period in such cases.