9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 94 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of Differential duty - suppression of facts - Invocation of extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - Held that - The Range Superintendent was very well aware of the variation between the commercial invoice and the excise invoice. Therefore, the records clearly confirms that demand is hit by limitation. The adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority in spite of the direction issued by Tribunal in the final order dt. 10.9.99 has not discussed on the issue of limitation and not made out a case of suppression of facts against appellant. In this context, we find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs CCE Bhubaneswar (2008 (8) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) clearly held that demand is hit by limitation and extended period cannot be invoked and there is no suppression of facts established by department. - show cause notice involved in the present demand for the period 1994-97 was issued on 6.8.1998 only demanding differential duty for the period March 1994-95 to March 1996-97. There is no suppression of facts by the appellant. By respectfully following the Supreme Court decision (supra), we hold that demand is hit by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Demand of differential duty on Scented Supari Betel Nut Powder under Chapter 2107. 2. Application of slab rates for duty calculation. 3. Limitation period for demand of duty. 4. Suppression of facts by the appellant. 5. Adjudication on additional grounds raised by the appellant. 6. Compliance with Tribunal's remand order. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a demand for differential duty on Scented Supari Betel Nut Powder. The appellant contested the demand, citing a Supreme Court judgment that crushing betel nuts and sweetening them does not amount to "manufacture." The appellant argued that the department miscalculated the duty by not considering the applicable slab rates. They provided detailed calculations to support their claim. 2. The appellant raised the issue of slab rates for duty calculation, stating that the department erroneously applied higher rates instead of the slab rates specified in a notification. They contended that if the correct slab rates were considered, the differential duty amount would be significantly lower. The appellant submitted worksheets and annexures to demonstrate the accurate calculation. 3. The limitation period for demanding duty was a crucial issue. The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts as they had provided all necessary information to the department. They highlighted various correspondences and letters exchanged with the department, showing that the details of deductions were disclosed. The appellant relied on case laws to support their argument against the invocation of the extended period of limitation. 4. The appellant vehemently denied any suppression of facts, emphasizing that they had communicated all relevant details to the department regarding the valuation and deductions claimed. They pointed out that the department was well aware of the discrepancies between the commercial and excise invoices. The Tribunal noted that the demand was hit by limitation as there was no deliberate attempt to evade duty payment. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the adjudication of additional grounds raised by the appellant. It was observed that the Tribunal's previous remand order directed the lower appellate authority to examine all points related to limitation raised by the appellant. However, clear findings on limitation were lacking in both the adjudicating authority's and the lower appellate authority's orders. 6. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal on grounds of limitation. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was hit by limitation, and there was no need to consider other grounds raised by the appellant. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, highlighting the importance of adherence to limitation periods in such cases.
|
