2018 (7) TMI 993 - AT - Central Excise

Time Limitation - suppression of facts - second mode of billing was not declared in the ER-1 Returns - Held that - The ld. A.R is correct in his assertion that department was only aware about the invoices on which duty had been paid and not with regard to supplementary invoices / billing done by the respondents since the second mode of billing was not declared in the ER-1 Returns. This aspect has not been disputed by the respondents either before the lower authorities or even in the cross objections filed by them - the respondents cannot make a claim that the entire manner of billing both by Central Excise invoices and also by supplementary invoices for job work was known to the department. This being so the finding of the Commissioner (Appals) that the matter was hit by limitation does not appeal to us. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Duty payment on chassis, supplementary invoices, limitation period, overlapping show cause notices.

Analysis:

1. Duty Payment on Chassis: The case involved the receipt of duty paid chassis from a company, building dipper bodies with hydraulic systems, and clearing fully built chassis with dipper bodies on payment of duty. The respondents also raised commercial/supplementary invoices ostensibly for job charges. The dispute arose regarding the duty payment and billing practices followed by the respondents.

2. Supplementary Invoices: The department contended that the supplementary invoices for job work were not declared in the ER-1 Returns filed by the respondents. The tribunal noted that the department was only aware of the invoices on which duty had been paid and not the supplementary invoices. The respondents did not dispute this fact. The tribunal held that the department was not informed about the second mode of billing, leading to a conclusion that the matter was not hit by limitation.

3. Limitation Period: The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders on limitation, but the tribunal disagreed with this finding. The tribunal observed that the respondents could not claim that the department was aware of the entire billing process, including the supplementary invoices, as it was not declared in the ER-1 Returns. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on limitation and reinstated the Orders-in-Original from 2009.

4. Overlapping Show Cause Notices: The respondents argued for a remand due to overlapping periods in the two show cause notices. However, the tribunal found no infirmity in the original authority's detailed address of this issue. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the department's appeals, set aside the impugned order, and restored the Orders-in-Original from 2009. The cross objections of the respondents were also disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the tribunal addressed the duty payment, supplementary invoices, limitation period, and overlapping show cause notices in the case, ultimately ruling in favor of the department and reinstating the original orders from 2009.