2019 (9) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise

Time Limitation - whether the demand is barred by limitation? - manufacture of Relax Drum Washer Machine - benefit of notification - Sr. No. 193 of N/N. 06/2002-C.E. dated 01.03.2002 - Sno. 5 of the list as specified under no. 3 of N/N. 06/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006) - HELD THAT - The issue on merit is settled as the same has been decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST., SURAT AND OTHERS VERSUS M/S. BHAGYAREKHA ENGINEERS PVT. LIMITED AND OTHERS 2014 (8) TMI 778 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD against the assessee and the same was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The appellant have heavily relied upon the physical verification report for registration vide F.no. RI Registration/AEW/07-08/Surat dated 30.08.2007 given by Superintendent Range-I Division-3, Surat-I to the Assistant Commissioner - The copy of the report was obtained by the appellant under RTI with a letter no. XIX/01/2011 dated 09/07/2019 almost after 8 years of filing the appeal. It is observed that this letter was not considered by the lower authorities as the same was neither presented nor available at the time of adjudication. Since, only on this letter, by verification report, the Superintendent has mentioned about availing the exemption notification no. 06/07-CE dated 01.03.2007, the appellant s submission is that there is no suppression of fact. Hence, the extended period of will not apply. Since this vital letter dated 30.08.2007 was not dealt with by the lower authorities, entire matter on limitation needs to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to exemption notification for manufacturing "Relax Drum Washer Machine"
2. Claim of limitation on the demand of duty

Entitlement to Exemption Notification:
The appellants were manufacturing "Relax Drum Washer Machine" under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1984, claiming exemption under specific notifications. However, the department contended that the machine did not fall under the exemption notification, leading to a demand for duty. The appellant argued that they believed their product was covered, supported by a detailed verification report conducted at the time of registration. They claimed the demand was time-barred due to the department's knowledge of the exemption claim since the registration in August 2007. The appellant emphasized that similar cases were decided in their favor on limitations by the Tribunal previously.

Claim of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the demand for duty was time-barred as the Show Cause notice was issued beyond the normal one-year period, relying on the verification report from 2007 obtained under RTI. The appellant contended that the report clearly stated their eligibility for exemption under specific notifications. The Tribunal found that this crucial report was not considered during adjudication, leading to a remand for a fresh decision on the limitation issue. The Tribunal concluded that the matter required reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority based on the new evidence presented.

The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of the verification report in determining the entitlement to exemption notifications and the relevance of timely consideration of all relevant evidence in adjudication. The case was remanded for a fresh decision on the limitation aspect, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of all available information before making a final determination.