9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 342 - HC - Central ExciseRectification of order - power of the tribunal to re-appreciate the facts and reverse the findings recorded in the Final order - tribunal set aside the demand after re-appreciating the evidence to hold that was no intention on the part of the respondent assessee to evade payment of duty and, therefore, it is not permissible to invoke extended period of limitation to demand. Held that - It is well settled by series of decisions that a contention though taken but not decided by the Tribunal would give rise to the scope for rectification. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining contention which was raised by the assessee at the outset but not decided by the Tribunal while rendering its judgement on appeal. If that be so, the only question which remains to be decided is, whether while entertaining such a contention the Tribunal committed any legal error Here also, we do not find any force in the contention of the Revenue. As asserted by the assessee and held by the Tribunal, the assessee had made all necessary declarations and, clearances were made with concurrence of the Department. There was no mis-declaration or a willful misstatement with a view to avoiding duty. The invocation of extended period of limitation, therefore, was rightly held not permissible. Tax Appeal is therefore, dismissed. - Decided against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against CESTAT order 2. Reversal of findings by CESTAT 3. Re-appreciation of evidence by CESTAT 4. Modification of final order by CESTAT 5. Application of Section 11D of Central Excise Act 6. Application of extended period of limitation under Section 11A 7. Rectification application by assessee 8. Decision on limitation contention 9. Tribunal's authority to entertain contentions Analysis: 1. The Department appealed against the CESTAT order, raising questions of law for consideration by the High Court. The issues included the reversal of findings, re-appreciation of evidence, and modification of the final order by CESTAT. 2. The Tribunal initially rejected the appeal of the assessee challenging the application of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act regarding limitation and retrospective applicability. The Tribunal observed that no rigid period of limit is prescribed under Section 11D and that the Department acted within a reasonable period. 3. The assessee filed a rectification application citing two grounds: non-decision on retrospective application of Section 11D and the impermissibility of invoking extended period of limitation under Section 11A. The Tribunal allowed this application based on the contention that the demand was time-barred. 4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had shown duty paid and set off claimed in invoices, indicating no intention to evade duty. As a result, the demand under Section 11A was considered time-barred, leading to the rectification of the mistake. 5. The Tribunal's decision to entertain contentions not previously decided was justified, as per established legal principles. The Tribunal found no legal error in considering the assessee's arguments, as there was no misdeclaration or willful misstatement to avoid duty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 6. Overall, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the invocation of extended period of limitation was not permissible due to the absence of willful misdeclaration by the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate declarations and concurrence with the Department in duty-related matters.
|
