2008 (7) TMI 269 - HC - Central Excise

Allegation of suppression of the duty payable goods - Department detected the case on 25-10-1996 and issued the SCN on 26-6-2000 - Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding of fact stating that show-cause notice issued on 26-6-2000 is barred by limitation - finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order is based on undisputed facts. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed in this Appeal do not arise for our consideration appeal of revenue dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Whether the show cause notice was issued belatedly.
3. Whether the Assistant Commissioner took permission from the Commissioner to invoke the proviso to Section 11A of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, focusing on various grounds. The appellant framed questions of law and sought to set aside the said order. The Tribunal had remanded the case for a de novo inquiry by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing the need to consider all issues raised by the assessee. However, the Commissioner of appeals noted that the show-cause notice was time-barred and lacked approval from the Commissioner to invoke Section 11A of the Act. The Tribunal's finding on the limitation issue was based on undisputed facts, leading to the conclusion that the initiation of proceedings and assessment order were indeed barred by limitation.

2. The appellant contended that the decision in Nizam Sugars case was not applicable to the present case, citing the timely issuance of the show-cause notice within the statutory period. The Tribunal correctly noted the date of detection of alleged suppression of duty by the Department in 1999, with the show-cause notice issued in 2000. The Tribunal's finding that the initiation of proceedings was time-barred was supported by factual evidence, rendering the legal contention misplaced. The Tribunal's decision was based on undisputed facts, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit.

3. The legal analysis delved into the provisions of Section 11A of the Act and the requirement for obtaining permission from the Commissioner, which was deemed unnecessary post an amendment in May 1994. The Tribunal's finding that the show-cause notice was served within the prescribed limitation period under Section 11A prior to the relevant amendment was upheld. The Tribunal's conclusion that the initiation of proceedings and assessment order were time-barred was based on factual findings and undisputed evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as it lacked merit, upholding the Tribunal's findings that the initiation of proceedings and assessment order were time-barred based on factual evidence and legal analysis.