9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding duty demand and penalty imposition, specifically challenging the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Act.
Summary: The appellants, manufacturers of aluminium skived tubes, sold their products to various manufacturers. They claimed a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 56/95-C.E., which was later found to be incorrect. A show cause notice was issued for the period 1-4-1995 to 30-4-1996, demanding differential duty and invoking the extended period of limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal. The appellants contested the Commissioner (Appeals) order solely on the question of limitation. They admitted they were not entitled to the concessional rate of duty. The learned Counsel cited precedent to support their argument that the demand was time-barred due to lack of suppression of material facts by the appellants. The Tribunal considered the facts and submissions. They noted that the duty demand was based on the RT-12 returns regularly submitted by the appellants, containing detailed information on duty availed under the notification. As there was no suppression of facts by the appellants, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Relying on previous cases, the Tribunal held that the demand for the disputed period was time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, allowing the appeal on the question of limitation with appropriate relief under the law.
|
