2019 (9) TMI 326 - HC - Central Excise

Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The learned counsel for the appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22. 8. 2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i. e. ₹ 55, 91, 573/- is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, demand of Central Excise duty on goods, invocation of extended period of limitation, liability of the assessee to pay duty, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing Appeal: The appeal in question faced a delay of 1471 days, leading to the filing of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the said delay. The delay was a crucial aspect addressed by the court in the initial stages of the judgment.

2. Demand of Central Excise Duty: The respondent company was involved in manufacturing and clearing excisable goods without proper registration, leading to a show cause notice for a demand of &8377; 55,91,573/- along with interest and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed this demand, which was the primary issue under consideration.

3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: One of the substantial questions of law raised was whether the extended period of limitation should have been allowed in this case. The legality and justification of setting aside the demand of Central Excise duty without discussing the merits of the case were also questioned.

4. Liability of the Assessee: The judgment also delved into the question of the assessee's liability to pay the duty, interest, and penalty based on the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal solely on the point of limitation was a significant aspect of the legal analysis.

5. Withdrawal of Appeal: During the hearing, it was noted that the appeal might not be maintainable due to instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, regarding the recovery of amounts below a certain limit. Consequently, the appellant sought withdrawal of the appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn with the question of law raised remaining open for future consideration. No orders were passed on the application seeking condonation of delay due to the dismissal of the main appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment involved a detailed examination of the delay in filing the appeal, the demand of Central Excise duty, the invocation of the extended period of limitation, the liability of the assessee, and the subsequent withdrawal of the appeal based on monetary limits set by the Ministry of Finance.