2018 (1) TMI 1258 - AT - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - Section 11A (1) of CEA - Investigations conducted by the Revenue revealed that they were collecting much more amounts from their customers than the amounts printed on the paints and thinners by way of raising separate commercial invoices - Held that - The fact that differential consideration of the goods cleared by the appellant was being collected by them in their commercial invoices so raised, does not stand denied by the appellant. Further, the fact of such collection was never reflected by them in any of the statutory records filed before the department and was never brought to the notice of the Revenue. If that be so, the factum of collection of differential consideration, without its disclosure to the authorities, would lead to only one inevitable conclusion that there was malafide on the part of the assessee so as to evade payment of duty - extended period rightly invoked - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty payment on transaction value in terms of Section 4 of the CEA.
2. Point of limitation regarding demands raised for the period 2001-04.
3. Suppression and misstatement leading to invocation of a longer period for duty payment.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of paints and thinners, clearing them to industrial consumers by paying excise duty in accordance with Section 4A of the CEA, 1944. Investigations revealed that the appellant collected more amounts from customers than printed on the products, through separate commercial invoices. The appellant acknowledged the duty payment requirement based on transaction value as per a Supreme Court decision. However, the appellant contested the impugned order on limitation grounds, stating that the demands raised in July 2005 for the period 2001-04 were time-barred. The Revenue argued that the appellant's collection of differential amounts through commercial invoices led to suppression and misstatement, justifying a longer limitation period.

2. The lower authority found evidence supporting the Revenue's claims, stating that the appellant had cleared paints and thinners to industrial consumers without printing maximum retail price (MRP) on the containers. This contravened Section 4 and Section 4A(1) of the CEA, 1944. The goods, manufactured in bulk for industrial use, did not require MRP as per the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. The appellant's willful suppression of additional amounts received through commercial invoices, along with misdeclaration of MRP affixation, indicated an intent to evade duty payment. The failure to disclose these collections to authorities led to the conclusion of malafide intent for duty evasion, satisfying the conditions for invoking a longer limitation period.

3. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the demand was time-barred and upheld the invocation of a longer limitation period due to suppression and misstatement. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the appellant's failure to disclose the collection of additional amounts and the malafide intent to evade duty payment. The judgment highlighted the satisfaction of Section 11A(1) proviso requirements, justifying the longer limitation period and rejecting the appellant's plea for setting aside penalties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI provides insights into the duty payment requirements, limitation periods, and implications of suppression and misstatement in excise duty cases.