2012 (8) TMI 569 - AT - Central Excise

Alleged suppression of sales and wrong availment of benefit of Notification 64/95 dated 16.3.1995 - invokation of extended period of limitation - assessee engaged in the manufacture of IC engines, cleared goods manufactured to M/s. Goa Shipyard Ltd. by availing the benefit of Notification 64/95 - Held that - It is found that respondents filed classification declaration before clearance of the goods. Also, necessary monthly returns alongwith invoices showing clearance of goods to M/s. Goa Shipyards Ltd. by claiming the benefit of Notification. In addition to this, also produced certificate from the competent authority that the goods in question are for use on board of naval ship. In these circumstances, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty is not sustainable. Demand beyond the normal period is held to be time barred - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue appeal against dropping of demand beyond the normal period of limitation due to alleged suppression by the Respondents.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the Revenue filed an appeal against an order by the Commissioner of Central Excise dropping the demand beyond the normal period of limitation as time-barred. The Respondents, engaged in manufacturing IC engines, had cleared goods to a specific entity by availing a duty exemption notification. The Revenue alleged suppression by the Respondents in wrongly availing the notification benefit, justifying the demand invoking the extended period of limitation.

The Revenue contended that the Respondents' actions in clearing goods by incorrectly availing the notification benefit amounted to suppression, justifying the demand beyond the normal period. On the other hand, the Respondents argued that they had filed the necessary declarations and returns, including a certificate from the competent authority, to support their claim for the notification benefit. They also highlighted their reversal of credit and cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their position.

The tribunal observed that the Respondents had complied with the requirements by filing the necessary classification declaration, monthly returns, and providing a certificate for the goods' use on a naval ship. Considering these actions, the tribunal found the allegation of suppression unsustainable and upheld the order dropping the demand beyond the normal period of limitation as time-barred. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection was also disposed of.

This judgment underscores the importance of proper compliance with notification requirements and documentation to support claims for duty exemptions. It also highlights the significance of providing evidence to counter allegations of suppression, ultimately influencing the decision on the demand period's limitation.