2018 (5) TMI 476 - AT - Central Excise

Time limitation - suppression of value - short payment of duty - Held that - it is clear that the respondent have not suppressed any fact and the entire details of supply was well within the knowledge of the departmental officer. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) finding dropping the demand of time bar is absolutely correct - Revenue has not made out any ground to deviate from the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Contesting demand dropped on time bar

Analysis:
The case involved the Revenue filing an appeal challenging the demand dropped on time bar. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of chemicals falling under Chapter Heading 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The officers found that the respondents supplied chemicals to major customers and exported a significant portion of their production. It was alleged that the respondents procured raw materials without paying duty under various schemes, leading to a short payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, interest, and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on the ground of time bar, leading to the Revenue's present appeal.

The Revenue argued that the respondents undervalued goods supplied against advance licenses, leading to a suppression of facts and willful misstatement to evade duty payment. They contended that the price verification required analyzing data over a longer period, as the ER-1 return did not provide detailed invoice-wise information. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dropping the demand on time bar.

On the other hand, the respondent's representative argued that the different prices charged were due to supplying against invalidation of advance licenses, not undervaluation. They maintained that all details related to supplies against advance licenses were provided to the department well before the investigating officer's visit, as certified by the jurisdictional Superintendent. They emphasized that no facts were suppressed, and the Commissioner rightly dropped the demand on time bar.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that the Revenue's appeal lacked grounds to rebut the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding. The respondents had consistently provided statements of supplies against advance licenses, certified by departmental officers, indicating no suppression of facts. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the demand dropped on time bar was correctly decided. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection was disposed of.