2001 (7) TMI 155 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred Show Cause Notice
2. Central Excise duty demand on goods cleared under bond
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 14A of the CER, 1944

Detailed Analysis:
1. Time-barred Show Cause Notice:
The Revision Application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal regarding the demand for Central Excise duty and penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner. The main contention was that the Show Cause Notice dated 15-3-1994 was time-barred. The relevant statutory provisions under Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 were examined to determine the "relevant date" for issuing the notice. The judgment emphasized that the duty on goods cleared for export is assessed and charged to the bond, and failure to provide proof of export results in enforcement of the bond, not non-levy or non-payment of tax. Citing the decision in Ujagar Prints v. UOI, it was clarified that the duty is considered "levied" when charged or assessed during the export process.

2. Central Excise duty demand on goods cleared under bond:
The judgment highlighted that the tax collection is deferred if the goods are exported, and the bond execution is a prerequisite for export permission. It was clarified that failure to export leads to bond enforcement, not non-payment of tax. The exporters are contractually obligated to honor the bond terms, and reliance was placed on specific case laws to support the contention that the duty demand was within the legal framework. The judgment emphasized that the duty was assessed and charged, and the demand was for the duty amount adjusted in the bond due to non-submission of proof of exports.

3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 14A of the CER, 1944:
The applicants relied on various case laws to argue that the demand and penalty were time-barred under Section 11A(1) of the CEA, 1944. However, the judgment differentiated the present case from the cited cases, stating that the demand was for duty assessed and charged in the bond, not for non-levy or non-payment of tax. It was concluded that the Revision Application lacked merit, and the rejection of the appeal was upheld based on the contractual obligations of the exporters and the legal framework governing duty demands on goods cleared for export under bond.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the Revision Application, emphasizing the contractual obligations of the exporters to fulfill bond terms and provide proof of export. The decision was based on the distinction between duty enforcement through bonds and non-levy or non-payment of tax, as clarified by relevant statutory provisions and case laws cited in the analysis.