9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (7) TMI 434 - HC - Central ExciseDemand - Limitation - Extended period - Held that - Whether in light of facts which have come on record any willful misstatement or suppression of facts can be ascribed to the respondent assessee is the question. The fact that in similar fact situation, the stand of respondent assessee was supported by three decisions of Tribunal till 9-12-2005 when the Larger Bench of the Tribunal decided the issue, itself would indicate that the position of law was not free from doubt and if the assessee adopted one modality for claiming exemption on the basis of decisions favouring the assessee, the charge as to willful misstatement or suppression of facts cannot be sustained. The finding of Tribunal referred to hereinbefore indicates that there was no information available on record to show that respondent assessee had made any attempt to keep away any vital information from the department. In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the impugned order of Tribunal is based on appreciation of facts and evidence on record. In light of the position of law declared subsequently no infirmity can be found in the said order. No question of law arises.
Issues:
- Whether there was deliberate suppression of facts by the respondent assessee to evade Central Excise Duty. - Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies in this case. - Whether the respondent assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. Analysis: 1. Deliberate Suppression of Facts: The appellant revenue alleged that the respondent assessee, a 100% export-oriented unit, evaded Central Excise Duty through deliberate suppression of facts regarding the manufacturing process, raw materials used, and the intent to wrongly benefit from an exemption notification. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, imposed penalties, and ordered interest recovery. The Tribunal upheld the demand on merits but canceled penalties, citing conflicting decisions on eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The Tribunal found no willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the respondent assessee, leading to the cancellation of penalties. 2. Extended Period of Limitation: The Tribunal considered conflicting decisions on the eligibility of assessees to Notification No. 8/97-C.E., leading to a Larger Bench to resolve the conflicts. The Tribunal held that due to conflicting views, the respondent assessee acted under a bona fide belief of entitlement to the notification. The Tribunal ruled that the demand beyond the normal limitation period was not sustainable, as the law was clarified by the Larger Bench after the relevant period. The matter was remanded for quantification of the demand within the limitation period. 3. Benefit of Exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E.: The respondent assessee defended their actions by explaining the manufacturing process and the use of imported raw materials, arguing that the benefit of the notification should apply. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions supporting the respondent's stand until the Larger Bench's decision. The Tribunal upheld the demand on merits but found that the respondent acted in good faith based on previous decisions, leading to the cancellation of penalties. 4. Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, which was based on an evaluation of facts and evidence. The Court highlighted that the respondent's actions were in line with previous Tribunal decisions until the law was clarified by the Larger Bench, indicating a lack of willful misstatement or suppression of facts. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of deliberate suppression of facts, the application of the extended limitation period, and the entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and subsequent legal clarifications, ultimately dismissing the appeal without finding any substantial question of law.
|
