Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (3) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
Challenge to duty demand with penalty for the period 1998-99 to 2001-02 based on discrepancies in balance sheets and RT-12 returns.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Patent or Proprietary Medicaments, appealed against an order confirming duty demand with penalty for the years 1998-99 to 2001-02. The duty demand was based on discrepancies between the production shown in balance sheets and RT-12 returns. The appellants denied allegations of suppression of production, attributing discrepancies to genuine mistakes in balance sheet preparation. The adjudicating authority upheld the duty demand, prompting the appeal.

The appellants argued that no tangible evidence proved suppression of production or clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. They contended that discrepancies in balance sheets and RT-12 returns were insufficient to support charges of clandestine removal. Additionally, they claimed the extended limitation period could not be invoked as balance sheets were public documents, and no information suppression occurred. Hence, they sought to set aside the impugned order on both merit and limitation grounds.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in production figures between balance sheets and RT-12 returns. However, the adjudicating authority acknowledged genuine mistakes in balance sheet preparation, particularly for certain years where discrepancies were reconciled. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting clandestine clearance of goods without duty payment or excess receipt of inputs. It emphasized the absence of unaccounted goods or evidence from the market to substantiate evasion of duty.

Regarding the extended limitation period, the Tribunal cited a precedent where demand based on balance sheet information was deemed time-barred due to the public availability of balance sheets. Applying this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the duty demand for the appellants was also time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief permissible under the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates