2019 (4) TMI 1460 - AT - Central Excise

Scope of SCN -Demand of sectral excise duty - furniture items to various customers including M/s. I. T. C. as well as M/s. ABN Amro Bank - HELD THAT - It is seen that the impugned order has decided the issue only with reference to M/s. Interscape; hence we are at a loss to understand the basis for the appeals filed by the Revenue against M/s. Amro Bank as well as M/s. ITC. No specific grounds are also forthcoming for the Departmental appeal against these two persons - the appeal directed against M/s. ITC as well as M/s Amro Bank. are infructous and hence, dismissed. Appeal of Revenue against the dropping of the demand against M/s. Interscape - chargeability of Central Excise Duty on furniture items - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI VERSUS LOUIS SHOPPE 1995 (3) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA decided this issue in favour of Revenue - thus, for the period until the issue was finally in March 1995 by the Supreme Court in the Louis Shoppe case, no duty can be demanded. He has also accordingly held that Revenue was not justified in invoking the extended period of time limit and hence, no demand can be enforced for the period beyond normal time limit - Since, no demand has survived within the normal time limit, he has dropped the entire demand raised in the Show Cause Notice. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dropping of demand for Central Excise Duty made against M/s. Interscape.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Original dropping the proceedings in respect of the demand for Central Excise Duty made against M/s. Interscape. The disputed period was from 1992-93 to 1995-96. The Revenue contended that M/s. Interscape was liable to pay Central Excise Duty on furniture supplied to various customers. The Commissioner initially ordered payment of duty and confiscation of seized furniture, which was challenged before CESTAT. After several rounds of litigation, the Commissioner, in compliance with the remand directions of the Tribunal, dropped the entire demand against M/s. Interscape on the ground of time bar.

The Revenue challenged the impugned order, arguing that a part of the demand falling within a specific period should still be upheld. However, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order only concerned M/s. Interscape, making the appeals against other entities irrelevant. As a result, the appeals against M/s. ITC and M/s. Amro Bank were dismissed.

Regarding the appeal against dropping the demand against M/s. Interscape, the Tribunal considered the chargeability of Central Excise Duty on furniture items during the disputed period. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was established that until a certain date when the issue was clarified, no duty could be demanded. The Commissioner found that the Revenue was not justified in invoking the extended time limit and therefore dropped the entire demand raised in the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, upheld the Commissioner's reasoned order, rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue against M/s. Interscape.

In conclusion, all the appeals filed by Revenue were rejected by the Tribunal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to drop the demand against M/s. Interscape.