9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 976 - AT - Central ExciseInvocation of Extended Period of Limitation - international organization or not - applicability of N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1905 - mistake, willful misstatement or suppression of material facts or any fraudulent activity or not - Department has opined that the Appellants are not eligible for the exemption as JBSE cannot be considered as an international organization within the scope of the Notification - HELD THAT - Ld. Sr. Counsel has fairly submitted that they are not arguing the case on merits. However, they are disputing the invocation of extended period for issuance of the show cause notice. It is found that a certificate was given by M/s. MSEB on 23.10.2000 and the same was counter-signed by the Principal Secretary (Energy), Govt. of Maharashtra. The Appellants vide letter dated 14.02.2001 have informed the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner about their intention to avail the benefit of the Notification No.108/95-CE on the strength of the said certificate. The Appellants have started making clearances within one week of the above said letter. The Appellants have cleared their goods during the period 20.02.2001 to 06.10.2001 and they have been filing RT-12 returns regularly. These facts have not been disputed either in the impugned orders or by the Authorized Representative during the course of hearing. We find that though the department was informed as early as February 2001 took note of the ineligibility of the Notification in June 2003 by which the time limit prescribed for issuance of show cause notice for duty not paid not levied as already expired. The department to cover up their inaction immediately after the submission of the said letter by the Appellants have taken recourse to invocation of extended period. We find that this is not legal and proper. No material evidence has been suppressed by the Appellants with intent to evade payment of applicable duty. In fact only in 2003, the Tribunal has decided that said certificates are not valid for availing exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE. This being so, the Appellants cannot be faulted for availing exemption in the bona fide belief that the said certificate issued by the competent authority is valid for availing the exemption. Under these circumstances and the facts of the case and the case law relied upon by the Ld. Sr.Counsel for the Appellants, we find that no case has been made for invocation of extended period. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Timeliness of the show cause notice under section 11AC of the Act. 2. Allegations of willful misstatement or suppression of material facts. 3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE. 4. Invocation of extended period for show cause notice. 5. Liability for duty, interest, and penalty. Analysis: Issue 1: Timeliness of the show cause notice under section 11AC of the Act The Appellant argued that the show cause notice issued on 23.06.2003 was beyond the prescribed period as per the proviso to section 11AC of the Act. The Appellant contended that the proceedings were time-barred. Issue 2: Allegations of willful misstatement or suppression of material facts The Appellant denied any willful misstatement, suppression of material facts, or fraudulent activity to evade duty payment. They asserted that they promptly disclosed all relevant details to the authorities upon receipt of the certificate and regularly filed RT-12 returns, demonstrating their compliance. Issue 3: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE The dispute arose regarding the eligibility of the Appellants for exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE, concerning projects funded by an international organization. The department contended that the Appellants were not eligible for the exemption due to the nature of the funding. Issue 4: Invocation of extended period for show cause notice The Appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period for issuing the show cause notice. They maintained that they acted in good faith based on the certificate provided by the competent authority, and the Tribunal's decision in 2003 clarified the validity of such certificates for exemption purposes. Issue 5: Liability for duty, interest, and penalty The Appellant, supported by case law references, contended that they were not liable to pay duty, interest, or penalty due to their genuine belief in the validity of the certificate and their compliance with reporting requirements. The department's reliance on a previous case was challenged as mis-conceived. In the judgment, the Tribunal found in favor of the Appellants, emphasizing that no material evidence was suppressed with the intent to evade duty payment. The Tribunal concluded that the invocation of the extended period for the show cause notice was unjustified, given the Appellants' good faith reliance on the certificate and the absence of fraudulent intent. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the Appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the key issues raised, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal aspects involved in the case.
|
