2013 (5) TMI 652 - HC - Central Excise

Second round of litigation before tribunal - SSI Exemption - Notification no. 175/86 - submission of SSI certificate - extended period of limitation - held that - In the earlier order dated 22.2.2001 the Tribunal had categorically held the applicant not to be entitled for the benefit of S.S.I. exemption which was available to the earlier Unit but would be entitled for exemption from the date of application i.e. 31.7.1987. This order had become final between the parties as the applicant did not challenge the same in any higher forum. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that this issue cannot be reopened in the second round of litigation. Demand beyond five years - held that - from the adjudication order that the demand has been raised with effect from 06.11.1986 even though 86-87 had been mentioned. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the demand as confirmed by the Tribunal as it falls well within the period of 5 years from the date a show cause notice issued to the applicant. Suppression, concealment or fraud or mis-statement - held that - From the order of the Tribunal we do not find any such plea having been raised. The only plea raised before the Tribunal was that the demand beyond the period of five years under section 11 A of the Act could not have been raised. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C E dated 1.3.1986.
2. Adjudication of benefits of Notification No. 175/86-C E.
3. Limitation period for recovery of excise duty.
4. Compliance with notice and hearing requirements under the Act and Rules.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C E dated 1.3.1986. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) was questioned for not deciding whether the Applicants were entitled to the benefits of the notification from a specific date. The Tribunal's decision and reasoning were challenged, seeking clarity on the entitlement to benefits under the notification.

2. The issue of adjudication of benefits under Notification No. 175/86-C E was examined. The CEGAT's decision not to consider the adjudication of benefits due to the absence of an appeal against a remand order was disputed. The error of law in this regard was highlighted, emphasizing the importance of assessing the entitlement to notification benefits in the absence of specific appeals.

3. The judgment delves into the limitation period for the recovery of excise duty. The CEGAT's failure to acknowledge the limitation period for demanding excise duty for clearances made before a certain date was questioned. The application of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act regarding the limitation on recovery of duties was a crucial aspect of this issue.

4. Lastly, the compliance with notice and hearing requirements under the Act and Rules was scrutinized. The error of law in not considering the lack of specific notice and opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order was highlighted. The importance of adhering to procedural requirements before making decisions impacting the parties involved was emphasized.

The judgment extensively reviewed the facts related to the search of factory premises, issuance of show cause notices, confirmation of duty demands, imposition of penalties, and the subsequent appeals and orders passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. The legal representatives presented arguments regarding the interpretation of earlier orders, the legality of demands raised, and the application of limitation periods. Ultimately, the judgment favored the Revenue over the assessee based on the analysis and interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and factual circumstances.