9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 592 - AT - Central ExciseTime Limitation - removal of capital goods during the period September 2011 in contravention of Notification no. 22/2003- CE dated 31.03.2003, as amended, read with para 6.13(c) of the FTP 2009-14 and Para 25 of the Customs Law Manual, 2013 - HELD THAT - The impugned order cannot sustain on limitation in as much as the Show Cause Notice was issued in September 2016 for the period in dispute of September 2011. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Early Hearing Application for Appeal No. E-76515/2019 - Demand of central excise duty, penalty, and interest - Allegation of removal of capital goods in contravention of notifications - Appeal based on limitation grounds - Previous Tribunal order observations on limitation - Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court decisions on disclosures in ER-2 returns Early Hearing Application for Appeal: The Miscellaneous Application was filed by the appellant seeking early hearing for Appeal No. E-76515/2019, citing a favorable decision in a previous appeal. The Tribunal granted the application and proceeded with the final disposal with the consent of both parties. Demand of Central Excise Duty, Penalty, and Interest: The appeal was against the demand of central excise duty amounting to ?24,29,726/- along with a penalty and applicable interest. The demand was confirmed in the Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2018 by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Singur Division, based on the alleged contravention of notifications regarding the removal of capital goods. Allegation of Removal of Capital Goods: The appellant was alleged to have removed capital goods during September 2011 in violation of Notification no. 22/2003-CE, as amended, along with relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and Customs Law Manual. Appeal Based on Limitation Grounds: The Tribunal considered the appeal could be decided on the grounds of limitation without delving into the merits. The Tribunal referred to a previous order where it was observed that the show cause notice issued in April 2016 for a dispute dating back to September 2011 was barred by limitation. Previous Tribunal Order Observations on Limitation: The Tribunal cited a previous order where it was held that adequate disclosures made in the ER-2 returns by the appellant prevented any case of suppression, leading to the show cause notice issued in 2016 for a 2011 dispute being time-barred. The impugned order was set aside based on the limitation aspect. Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court Decisions: The Tribunal also referenced decisions from the Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court, emphasizing the importance of disclosures in ER-2 returns. The courts held that if details were provided in accordance with the prescribed format and no wrong information was given, there could be no case of suppression. The Tribunal aligned with these decisions to rule in favor of the appellant based on the limitation issue. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on limitation grounds, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief as per law.
|
