2018 (2) TMI 706 - AT - Central Excise

Time limitation - Demand subsequently has been raised on the basis of the interpretation of the word feedstock , used in the notification - Held that - no evidence has been brought forward to suggest that the appellants have used the furnace oil for the purpose other than whatsoever declared in details to the department. Therefore, demand beyond normal period would not sustain. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is hereby sustained - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of the word "feedstock" in a notification for Central Excise Registration and its impact on the limitation period for raising demands.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a case where the appellant, represented by the Departmental Representative, appealed against a demand of ?10,12,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that the department had allowed the appellant to bring furnace oil under CT2 certificates after careful consideration. The demand was based on the interpretation of the word "feedstock" in a notification. The Commissioner noted that no evidence suggested the appellant had used the furnace oil for any purpose other than what was declared to the department. Thus, it was concluded that the demand beyond the normal period was not sustainable, and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Reference was made to a previous order and a case law to support this view.

The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found the Commissioner's observation reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order and sustained it along with the reasons provided therein. As a result, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. The judgment highlighted the importance of the interpretation of legal terms like "feedstock" in notifications related to Central Excise Registration and emphasized the need for evidence to support any demands raised beyond the normal limitation period. The decision underscored the significance of thorough examination and adherence to legal provisions in such matters to ensure fair and just outcomes.