2017 (1) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of interest for the intervening period - imposition of penalty - compounded levy scheme - short payment of duty on account of increase in rate of compounded levy scheme - Demand of interest on differential duty and penalty - extended period of limitation - Held that - no verification was sought by the authorities below for payment made by the appellant on 13-3-2000 and 27-3-2000 to find out whether the appellant has paid the differential duty during the said period or not. In that circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside impugned order and to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of limitation as well as to find out the factual position about the payment of differential duty in the March, 2000 itself vide challans dated 13-3-2000 and 27-3-2000 - appeal disposed off - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Limitation regarding the show cause notice.
2. Factual position of the case regarding payment of duty.

Analysis:
Issue (A) - Limitation:
The appellant contended that the show cause notice issued in October 2010 was time-barred as the short payment of duty was detected in July 2002. The appellant argued that this limitation issue was not considered by the lower adjudicating authority. The appellate tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, stating that the show cause notice was indeed barred by limitation. The tribunal noted that no verification was conducted by the authorities to confirm whether the appellant had paid the differential duty during March 2000. As a result, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide on the limitation issue and verify the factual position of the duty payment in March 2000.

Issue (B) - Factual position of the case:
The appellant claimed to have paid the excess duty in July 2002 and argued that they were entitled to a refund of the excess amount paid. The tribunal observed that the authorities below did not seek verification of the payment made by the appellant in March 2000 to determine if the appellant had indeed paid the differential duty. In the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for further examination by the adjudicating authority. The tribunal directed the authority to investigate and confirm the factual position regarding the payment of differential duty in March 2000 based on the challans dated 13-3-2000 and 27-3-2000. The tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough review of the payment records before making a decision on the interest and penalty imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case back to the adjudicating authority for a detailed examination of the limitation issue and the factual position of the duty payment in March 2000. The tribunal directed the authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law after completing the necessary verification and assessment.