2014 (12) TMI 538 - AT - Central Excise

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Collection of transport charges claimed as deduction - Suppression of facts - Commissioner held demand time barred - Held that - When the case came up on 27/02/2014, we had directed the Revenue to submit copies of the price declaration filed by the appellant during the relevant period and the same have been submitted before us. On a perusal of these price declarations, it is seen that the respondent had enclosed the work-order and also the purchase orders for the supply of pipes in respect of work-contract undertaken by them. If these documents were available with the Revenue and deduction towards freight was claimed on the basis of these documents, it cannot be said that the respondent suppressed any fact. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on a decision of this Tribunal in respondent s own case reported in 2003 (7) TMI 615 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI wherein it was held that, if the place of removal is indicated in the RT-12 returns and excise invoices, then non-mention of place of removal in declaration filed under Rule 173C would not amount to suppression. Therefore, extended period of time could not be invoked in such circumstances. In the present case, we find that the respondent filed the declarations under Rule 173C along with all the relevant documents. In these circumstances, there is no scope for invoking extended period of time, and therefore, the lower appellate authority has correctly held the demand as time-barred. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No: PS(320)/101/2004 dated 30/08/2004
- Time-bar for confirmation of demand under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944
- Suppression of facts by the appellant
- Submission of relevant documents by the appellant
- Invocation of extended period of time for demand confirmation

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against Order-in-Appeal No: PS(320)/101/2004 dated 30/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondent, Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., on the grounds of time-bar, stating that the appellant had declared transportation charges in the price declaration under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and provided purchase orders for work-contracts, indicating no suppression of facts. The Revenue contended that the appellant had suppressed information regarding goods delivery at the site, as transportation documents showed delivery at the site where the pipe was laid, not at the factory gate. The Revenue argued that the dropping of the demand by the lower appellate authority on the basis of time-bar was incorrect. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that they had submitted all relevant documents to claim deduction towards freight, thus not suppressing any facts to warrant the invocation of the extended period of time for demand confirmation.

During the proceedings, the Revenue submitted copies of the price declarations filed by the appellant, which revealed that the appellant had enclosed work-orders and purchase orders for the supply of pipes for the work-contracts undertaken. The Tribunal noted that if these documents were available with the Revenue, and deduction towards freight was claimed based on them, it indicated no suppression of facts by the respondent. Citing a previous decision, the Tribunal emphasized that non-mention of the place of removal in the declaration filed under Rule 173C would not amount to suppression if the place of removal was indicated in the RT-12 returns and excise invoices. In this case, as the respondent had filed declarations under Rule 173C along with all relevant documents, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for invoking the extended period of time for demand confirmation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent due to the absence of suppression of facts and the submission of relevant documents, thereby deeming the demand as time-barred and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.