2017 (4) TMI 1360 - AT - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - the plea of the assessee-appellants is that the extended period cannot be initiated as the entire demand is time-barred - Held that - The show cause notice dated 30-4-2008 was issued for the motor vehicles cleared by the noticee no. 1 during the period 1-11-2004 to 31-3-2007. From the record, it also appears that the statements of the assessee-appellants were recorded by the Officers in the month of December, 2005 and the notice was issued on 30-4-2008. In the instant case, it was well within the knowledge of the assessee-appellants that the duty is payable @ 110%. Thus, the notice was issued correctly invoking the extended period of limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee-appellants.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Original, validity of extended period of limitation.

Analysis:
1. The present appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore for the period 1-11-2004 to 31-3-2007.
2. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter to the Commissioner for deciding the issue of limitation and consequent penalty.
3. The Commissioner examined the issue again and dismissed the appeal of the assessee-appellants, leading to the filing of the present appeals.
4. The counsel for the assessee argued that the impugned order was non-speaking, and the extended period should not have been invoked. He relied on a Board Circular and requested setting aside the order.
5. On the other hand, the Department justified the impugned order, stating that the duty was payable at a certain rate and the extended period was correctly invoked.
6. The issue in the case was limited to the extended period of limitation. The show cause notice was issued within the extended period, and the Supreme Court has held that in cases of suppression, the extended period of limitation is applicable.
7. The Tribunal found that the duty payable was known to the assessee-appellants, and the notice invoking the extended period was correct. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld without delving into the merits of the case.
8. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee-appellants were dismissed by the Tribunal.