2017 (2) TMI 1172 - HC - Central Excise

Time limitation - party intended to avail inadmissible credit, suppressed the facts from the Department - is extended period of limitation invokable? - Held that - Tribunal has not at all looked into the question, whether it was a case of extended period of limitation in respect whereto a finding was already recorded by Commissioner against Assessee - Matter is remanded to Tribunal to consider the question, whether there was a suppression of material fact by Assessee - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, 1944 arising from a Tribunal order, substantial question of law regarding limitation and suppression of material facts by Assessee.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, originating from a Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal order. The substantial question of law in this case pertains to the issue of limitation and whether the extended period of limitation is applicable due to the suppression of material facts by the Assessee. The argument raised by the Revenue's counsel was that the extended period of limitation should apply because of the Assessee's suppression of material facts, which was acknowledged by the Commissioner in a previous order.

The Commissioner, in the order dated 24.12.2013, found that the Assessee had indeed suppressed material facts from the department, justifying the invocation of the extended period provisions under Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner held that the demand raised by the department was within the permissible time frame of 5 years from the relevant date, based on the suppression of facts by the Assessee. The Commissioner cited relevant case laws to support this decision.

However, the Tribunal's order did not adequately address this crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal, in a brief and superficial manner, concluded that the entire demand was barred by limitation without delving into the question of whether the extended period of limitation should apply, despite the Commissioner's previous findings. The High Court, therefore, held that the Tribunal's judgment was not sustainable due to this oversight.

As a result, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a thorough consideration of whether there was indeed a suppression of material facts by the Assessee, the commencement of the limitation period in such a scenario, and the determination of whether the demand falls within the period of limitation as per the applicable provisions. The High Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the decision-making process in this regard.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive analysis of the limitation issue based on the suppression of material facts by the Assessee, which the Tribunal failed to address adequately in its initial judgment.