2019 (7) TMI 633 - AT - Central Excise

Time limitation - Scope for invoking section 11AB in absence of demand under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - price escalation clause - short payment of duty - section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 - appropriation of duty paid voluntarily, along with interest under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the Tribunal in Collector of Customs, Madras v. TVS Whirlpool Ltd 1996 (4) TMI 232 - CEGAT, MADRAS , has held that the time-limit provided for in section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 would also apply in such provisions of the statute that do not mandate a time-limit. The show cause notice issued in March 2006 and August 2007 for clearance effected between February 2001 and February 2005 is barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on duty payment.
2. Interpretation of judicial discipline in following precedent decisions.
3. Barred by limitation for show cause notice issued.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is the applicability of section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on duty payment. The appellant, M/s Malu Sleepers (Maharashtra) Pvt Ltd, challenged the order-in-appeal directing the deposit of interest on additional duty paid to the Indian Railways. The appellant argued that the duty liability arising from the provision for escalation, peculiar to contracts with the Indian Railways, was voluntarily discharged and did not constitute short-payment of duty under section 11A. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support their contention, emphasizing that interest provision attaches only with the recovery provisions. On the other hand, the respondent cited decisions by higher courts to argue in favor of applying section 11AB. The tribunal analyzed the facts and legal arguments presented, ultimately holding that the dispute centered on the scope of invoking section 11AB in the absence of a demand under section 11A.

2. The second issue pertains to the interpretation of judicial discipline in following precedent decisions. The tribunal deliberated on the contention raised by the Learned Authorised Representative regarding the requirement to extend the limitation in section 11A to section 11AB. The tribunal examined relevant judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, to determine the applicability of judicial discipline in this case. The tribunal emphasized the need for consistency in legal interpretation and precedent adherence, especially in matters involving similar appellants and legal issues. The tribunal disagreed with the argument that a single member bench decision should not bind a division bench, asserting the importance of following established legal principles and precedents.

3. The final issue addressed in the judgment concerns the limitation period for the show cause notice issued by the revenue authority. The appellant contended that the notice issued for clearances between 2001 and 2005 was barred by limitation. In light of relevant legal precedents and the absence of conflicting decisions, the tribunal upheld the limitation argument presented by the appellant. The tribunal's decision to follow established legal principles and precedents, especially in matters concerning limitation periods for show cause notices, was crucial in resolving this issue.

In conclusion, the tribunal's detailed analysis and interpretation of legal provisions, precedents, and principles of judicial discipline played a significant role in determining the outcome of the appeal. By carefully examining the arguments presented by both parties and applying relevant legal precedents, the tribunal provided a comprehensive judgment that addressed the key issues raised in the case.