2017 (11) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - non-maintenance of separate set of books - Held that - though the appellant is not maintaining the separate records with regard to clearance of PVC pipes on payment of duty and PVC scrap cleared at nil rate of duty but they have been clearly showing both type of clearances in their ER-1 returns which has been regularly filed with the Department - the appellants have been filing periodical returns in which they have clearly declared the clearances of their dutiable and non-dutiable products. Extended period of limitation - Held that - the Department has not brought any positive act on the part of the appellant which shows suppression of material facts on his part - extended period not invokable - demand for normal period upheld. Matter remanded to the original authority to find out whether the appellants have paid the duty for the normal period in accordance with law or not - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) - Non-maintenance of separate accounts for dutiable and exempted final products - Demand of duty, interest, and penalty - Suppression of facts leading to extended period of limitation - Legal sustainability of invoking extended period.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (A) regarding the non-maintenance of separate accounts for dutiable and exempted final products. The appellant, a manufacturer of blood bags, availed CENVAT credit on inputs and cleared waste as PVC scrap under an exemption notification. The appellant failed to maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted final products, leading to a demand for payment of duty, interest, and penalty under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the provisions regarding maintaining separate accounts and that they regularly filed returns to the Central Excise Department, showing clearances and credit availed. The appellant contended that there was no suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The appellant relied on legal precedents emphasizing the need for positive acts or deliberate intent to evade payment for invoking the extended period of limitation.

The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and the material on record. It noted that while the appellant did not maintain separate records, they consistently disclosed dutiable and non-dutiable clearances in their filed returns. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's basis for invoking the extended period was the alleged suppression of facts, detected only during an audit. However, the Tribunal observed that there was no evidence of deliberate suppression by the appellant, as required by legal precedents cited. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that invoking the extended period was not legally sustainable. The case was remanded to the original authority to determine if duty was paid for the normal period, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles and issuing a reasoned order within three months from the date of the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claim of suppression of facts by the appellant, leading to the rejection of the extended period of limitation invocation. The case was remanded for further examination regarding duty payment for the normal period, emphasizing adherence to legal principles and procedural fairness.