2015 (10) TMI 1030 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - extended period of limitation - Misdeclaration of value - Intention to evade duty - Held that - Appellants informed the Dept of the revision of the price time to time by various letters. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue drew the attention of the Bench to the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. It is observed that there is no consistency in the methods of valuation as claimed by the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority had elaborately discussed the inconsistency of the valuation methods. In our considered view, the inconsistency of the valuation methods cannot be treated as suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In other words, it is noticed that the appellant informed the Department time to time of variation of price and the Department was well aware of the method of price as declared by the respondent. Thus, there is no suppression of fact with the intent to evade payment of duty. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order setting aside demand due to limitation.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order where the demand was set aside due to being barred by limitation. The Respondents were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods and cleared them to sister units/other units, paying duty at 110% of the cost of production. A show cause notice was issued proposing a duty demand, interest, and penalty for incorrect valuation during a specific period. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside citing limitation.

The Revenue argued that the Respondent paid duty on revised value from a later date, alleging suppression of facts to evade duty payment. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying on the Respondent's submissions. The Revenue cited Tribunal decisions supporting the invocation of extended period of limitation when values were not declared.

In response, the Respondent's Consultant argued that the amount involved was below a certain threshold, seeking dismissal based on relevant Board Circulars. They claimed no suppression of facts, supporting the Commissioner (Appeals)' detailed findings and correspondence-based approach.

The Commissioner's findings highlighted the history of valuation methods, revisions, and communication with the Department. It was noted that the Respondent regularly informed the Department of price variations, and the Adjudicating Authority discussed valuation method inconsistencies. The Commissioner concluded that there was no suppression of facts to evade duty payment, holding the demand as time-barred.

The Tribunal analyzed the arguments, noting the Department's awareness of price changes communicated by the Respondent. They distinguished previous Tribunal decisions cited by the Revenue, emphasizing the public declaration of valuation methods by the Respondent. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.