2015 (8) TMI 585 - SC - Central Excise

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Valuation - Held that - issue as to what factors should be taken into consideration for arriving at the cost of production was clarified by the Department in its Circular dated 30.10.1996 and on that basis in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Asarwa Mills 2015 (4) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT , this Court took the view that the assessees could not be faulted with for taking into consideration some of those paras prior to the issuance of the said clarificatory circular. - Applying the principle extended period of limitation up to September, 1996 cannot be invoked. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:
The Supreme Court judgment dealt with the issue of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case involved a show cause notice issued for the period from 1993-1994 to 27.09.1997, with the notice itself issued on 03.02.1998. The contention revolved around the application of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A. The appellant argued that since there was no mis-declaration or mis-statement, the extended period of limitation should not have been invoked. The Court focused solely on the limitation aspect of the case.

The Court referenced a Circular dated 30.10.1996 by the Department clarifying factors to consider for determining the cost of production. In a prior case, Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Asarwa Mills, the Court held that assessees could not be faulted for considering certain factors before the issuance of the clarificatory circular. The judgment highlighted that the clarification on cost calculation was made in October 1996, whereas the concerned period in this case was prior to that, from April 1994 to September 1996. Consequently, intentional misdeclaration to evade excise duty could not be attributed to the companies during that period, leading to the conclusion that the extended limitation period was inapplicable.

Based on the above reasoning, the Court determined that the extended limitation period up to September 1996 could not be invoked. Although there remained a one-year period within the normal limitation timeframe, the tax impact for that period was deemed negligible. Consequently, the Court decided not to remand the case for that limited period and proceeded to allow the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The judgment thus clarified the application of the limitation period under Section 11A in the context of misdeclaration and clarified factors for cost calculation in excise matters.