2006 (8) TMI 182 - SC - Central Excise

Setting aside of finding regarding invocation of proviso to Section 11A of the Act for availing of the extended period of limitation of five years and the levy of penalty challenged Held that - Since the revenue has not challenged the findings recorded by the Tribunal on merits, they are confirmed. Once it is held that no differential duty was leviable, question of levy of penalty does not arise. Appeal failed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals against orders by the Tribunal regarding differential duty on tyres for vehicles, invocation of proviso to Section 11A of the Act for extended period of limitation, and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
In this judgment by the Supreme Court of India, two sets of appeals were disposed of where the Revenue appealed against orders by the Tribunal. The first set of appeals concerned Final Order Nos. C-I/3513-3514/WZB/2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai, while the second set of appeals was against Final Order Nos. C-I/2943-2945/WZB/2003 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal had set aside the demand raised by the show cause notice and the penalty in the first set of appeals, and in the second set, it followed its earlier decision in the case of Balkrishna Industries.

The dispute in the case revolved around the differential duty payable on tyres manufactured by M/s. Balkrishna Industries for various vehicles. The assessee was alleged to have cleared tyres meant for one type of vehicle as tyres for another type to benefit from lower duty rates under a specific notification. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, which were later set aside by the Tribunal in the first set of appeals.

The Supreme Court noted that the Revenue did not challenge the Tribunal's findings on merits in the appeals. Therefore, the findings on merits were confirmed, and since no differential duty was leviable, the question of imposing penalties did not arise. The Court also observed that the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the second set of appeals did not warrant interference.

Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no order as to costs was given. The judgment highlighted the importance of challenging findings on merits and the implications of differential duty rates on manufactured goods for different types of vehicles.