2017 (9) TMI 1429 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - extended period of limitation - Held that - the appellant has argued that since all the facts relating to clearance of left over materials disclosed in filing the relevant GP-1s alongwith monthly RT-12, therefore, no suppression of fact could be attributable for failure on their part to correlate between the GP-1 against which duty was paid initially on the machine and the GP against which subsequently left over parts/ components had been cleared by them - there is no suppression of facts, accordingly, the demand relating to left over material invoking extended period of limitation is set aside and consequently the penalty imposed on the appellant is also set aside - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Extended period of limitation for demand related to left out material
- Alleged misclassification and non-payment of duty

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, regarding allegations of non-payment of duty on left-out material and misclassification of goods. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for normal period for classification but invoked extended period for left-out material.

2. The appellant challenged the confirmation of demand invoking extended period for left-out material. The appellant argued that the subsequent demand notice issued for the same issue was barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court judgment. They contended that there was no suppression of fact regarding non-payment of duty on left-out materials, as all relevant information was disclosed in the filings. The appellant's submission was that the demand related to left-out material invoking extended period should be set aside.

3. The Revenue supported the Commissioner's findings, stating that the demand was rightly confirmed for left-out material invoking extended period due to the appellant's failure to correlate certain clearances with payments. The Revenue argued that dropping the demand for extended period on one issue did not automatically apply to another issue. The Commissioner had confirmed the demand based on the lack of correlation between GP-1s and subsequent clearances without duty payment.

4. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the demand for left-out goods invoking extended period was wrongly confirmed. The Tribunal noted that there was no suppression of facts as all relevant information was disclosed in the filings. Therefore, the demand related to left-over material invoking extended period of limitation was set aside, along with the penalty imposed on the appellant. However, the confirmation of demand on the classification issue for the normal period was upheld.

5. The Tribunal modified the impugned order to set aside the duty confirmed on the left-over parts/components and the penalty. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the judgment pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2017.