2013 (11) TMI 244 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Extended period - Held that - there is a detailed discussion as to why the extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue for raising the demand. It stands observed tin the said order that Commissioner himself has dropped the penalty on the ground that appellant is a bonafide purchaser of transferable DEPB scripts and as such, no suppression can be attributed to the appellant. Further the Tribunal also relied upon Tribunals decision in appellants own case whereby the demand of duty for the extended period was dropped - issue of availability of extended period is a legal issue required to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each and every cases. Tribunal having come to a finding that such extended period was not available to the Revenue for raising the demand, we are of the view that said findings cannot be held to be a mistake requiring any rectification - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the extended period of limitation is applicable in the case.
2. Whether the Tribunal's decision on the availability of the extended period for raising the demand was correct.

Analysis:

1. The issue before the Tribunal was the Revenue's appeal regarding the extended period involved in the case of Friends Trading Company. The Bench observed that the extended period was not the subject matter of the said decision, and the Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits and the extended period.

2. The Revenue contended that the extended period was indeed involved in the case, and the demand was rightly confirmed based on misrepresentation in procuring DEPB scripts. However, the Tribunal's detailed discussion in its order highlighted that the Commissioner dropped the penalty due to the appellant being a bona fide purchaser of transferable DEPB scripts, negating any suppression on the appellant's part. The Tribunal also referred to its own decision in the appellant's case where the demand for the extended period was dropped.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the availability of the extended period is a legal issue that must be decided based on the specific facts of each case. In this instance, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period was not available to the Revenue for raising the demand. The Tribunal considered this issue as finally decided and not a mistake requiring rectification. The Revenue was advised to challenge this decision in a higher forum if aggrieved.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's rectification of mistake application and rejected it, affirming its earlier decision on the availability of the extended period for raising the demand. The judgment was pronounced in open court, concluding the matter.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind its decision.