2008 (7) TMI 367 - HC - Central Excise

Demand and Recovery Extended period of limitation Suppression of facts first appellate authority perused the copies of RT-12 returns and the declaration filed under Rule 173B by the respondent assessee and recorded that in the circumstances, no suppression of facts was proved. - the entire facts were within the knowledge of the revenue when the earlier show cause notice was issued to the respondent assessee on the same ground.- there was no justification for invoking larger period of limitation in absence of any suppression of facts or misstatement with intention to evade payment of duty - it is not possible to state that any error in law has been committed by the Tribunal so as to give rise to a substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the view that the demand was barred by limitation due to lack of suppression of facts or misstatement with intention to evade payment of duty despite contravention of Notification No.1/93-CE, dated 8-2-1993.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the respondent wrongly claimed benefit under Notification No.1/93-CE, despite exceeding the monetary limit specified in the notification, making them ineligible for the concession as a small-scale industrial unit. The Tribunal was accused of error in confirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which found no suppression of facts or misstatement to evade duty payment. The appellant argued that similar short payments in previous periods justified raising the demand beyond the statutory period by invoking extended limitation.

2. The Tribunal noted that the respondent was involved in manufacturing texturised yarn eligible for small-scale exemption under Notification No.1/93 from 25-4-94. Previous disputes regarding clearance value were resolved by the Commissioner (Appeals) in 1996. A subsequent show cause notice in 1999 alleged short payment of duty from December 1994 to February 1995, which was initially confirmed by the Additional Commissioner but overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing no suppression of facts and thus time-barred demand.

3. The first appellate authority examined RT-12 returns and Rule 173B declarations by the respondent, finding no suppression of facts. Acknowledging the department's receipt of these documents, the authority deemed the demand time-barred. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that all facts were known to the revenue earlier, and no justification existed for a longer limitation period without evidence of suppression or misstatement.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings supported by evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Since both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal agreed on the absence of suppression of facts or intentional misstatement to evade duty payment, no legal error was found to warrant a substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of any legal issue presented for consideration.