9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1076 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - Area Based Exemption - whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under N/N. 50/2003 CE or they have done any act of suppression etc. by filing the required declaration being the declaration of their intention to avail the area-based exemption under the said Notification? - Held that - intimation to the Department about the option for claiming benefit of the exemption appears to be only procedural requirement - A liberal attitude, therefore, has to be taken in this regard, when the assessees otherwise are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification. Time limitation - Held that - The appellants cannot be blamed for about three years long delay in issue of the show cause notice. The proviso to sub Section 11A(1) cannot be used to cover up indolence on the part of the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers. Accordingly, it was held that the show cause notice is wholly time barred and impugned order was not sustainable on the ground of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Invocation of extended period of limitation. 2. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 CE. 3. Act of suppression by not filing the required declaration. Analysis: 1. The issue in the appeals was whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing power transmission equipment, established their unit in a notified area under Notification No. 50/2003 CE. They inadvertently did not file the required declaration before commencing commercial production. The Department issued a show cause notice after a prolonged delay, alleging the appellants wrongly availed exemption. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued after about 22 months from filing the declaration was time-barred, citing previous rulings emphasizing the importance of timely action by the Central Excise Authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants cannot be blamed for the delay and set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants. 2. The issue of entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 CE was also raised in the appeals. The appellants availed the benefit of exemption from a specified date but failed to file the necessary declaration before affecting the first clearance. The Department alleged that the appellants were not entitled to the exemption for clearances made during a specific period. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and held that the requirement of filing the declaration was a procedural formality. It noted that while exemption provisions must be complied with strictly, some leniency could be shown for procedural requirements that do not affect the substantive benefit of the exemption. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the substantive benefit of the exemption should not be denied due to procedural lapses. 3. Another issue raised was whether the appellants had committed an act of suppression by not filing the required declaration. The Department imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of goods for alleged non-compliance. The appellants contested the show cause notice on both merits and limitation. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, held that the show cause notice was time-barred and not sustainable. It emphasized the importance of timely action by the authorities and ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and granting them consequential benefits in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in the appeals addressed the issues of extended period of limitation, entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 CE, and alleged act of suppression. The ruling highlighted the significance of timely actions by the Central Excise Authorities, the procedural nature of certain requirements, and the importance of not denying substantive benefits due to procedural lapses. The Tribunal ultimately sided with the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and granting them relief in accordance with the law.
|
