2007 (2) TMI 144 - AT - Central Excise

Issuance of two SCN, one in 2000 and another in 2004 Both were based on same facts Second SCN was held time-barred because allegation of suppression based on same facts is not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred demand for duty on brass rods exceeding 10 feet length.
2. Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The appellant appealed against a demand for duty and penalty imposed on brass rods exceeding 10 feet length, confirmed through a show-cause notice issued in 2004. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred, citing an earlier show-cause notice in 2000 related to the same issue of brass rods length. The Revenue argued that the earlier proceeding was for confiscation, not duty demand, and thus the demand was not time-barred. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision stating that if all relevant facts were known to authorities during the first notice, suppression of facts in subsequent notices is not sustainable. The Tribunal agreed, holding that the demand was time-barred due to the repeated notice based on known facts, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

2. The appellant further argued that the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not sustainable, as all facts were known to the authorities during the earlier proceeding. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant, following the Supreme Court's decision that when subsequent notices are based on already known facts, the allegation of suppression is not valid. Therefore, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the demand was time-barred and allowing the appeal against the penalty and duty imposed on the brass rods exceeding 10 feet length.