2018 (10) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - no suppression of facts - Clearance of LED lights and fittings - Benefit of Sl.No.71B of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - scope of SCN - Held that - The basis for issue of show cause notice was scrutiny of ER-1 returns - there was no evidence for revenue to alleged suppression. Therefore, revenue did not have extended period for raising the demand - the demand is hit by bar of limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
- Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE
- Invocation of extended period of limitation for demand of differential Central Excise duty
- Supersession of Notification No.6/2006-CE by Notification No.12/2012-CE
- Classification of LED lights, fixtures, and LED lamps under Heading No.94.05
- Allegation of suppression by the revenue

Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE:
The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing LED lights and fixtures, including LED lamps, seeking exemption under Sl.No.71B of Notification No.6/2006-CE. The revenue contended LED lamps were not covered by the notification, leading to a demand for differential Central Excise duty. The appellants argued LED lamps were covered under Notification No.12/2012-CE, superseding the earlier notification. They emphasized LED lights, fixtures, and LED lamps were classifiable under the same heading, thus constituting the same commodities. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' regular filing of ER-1 returns, showing LED lamps cleared at concessional rates, and ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them relief.

Invocation of extended period of limitation for demand of differential Central Excise duty:
The revenue issued a show cause notice demanding differential duty for the period from June 2011 to March 2012, alleging ineligibility for exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE. The appellants contested the invocation of the extended period, citing no suppression or misinterpretation, as the notice was based on information from ER-1 returns. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression, concluding the demand was time-barred, and set aside the impugned order, allowing both appeals.

Supersession of Notification No.6/2006-CE by Notification No.12/2012-CE:
The appellants argued that Notification No.6/2006-CE was superseded by Notification No.12/2012-CE, which continued the exemption for LED lights, fixtures, and LED lamps under a different serial number. They highlighted the description under the new notification covering LED lights or fixtures, including LED lamps, falling under specific chapters. This argument supported their claim for exemption and played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision in their favor.

Classification of LED lights, fixtures, and LED lamps under Heading No.94.05:
Both LED lights, fixtures, and LED lamps were classified under Heading No.94.05 in the notifications discussed. The appellants contended that LED lights, fixtures, and LED lamps were the same commodities, as they fell under the same heading in the notifications. This classification alignment was pivotal in determining the applicability of the exemption and the subsequent demand for differential Central Excise duty.

Allegation of suppression by the revenue:
The revenue alleged suppression, justifying the invocation of the extended period for raising the demand. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim, as the show cause notice was based on the scrutiny of ER-1 returns. This lack of evidence led to the conclusion that the demand was time-barred due to the absence of suppression, resulting in the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellants and setting aside the impugned order.

← Previous Next →