9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Duty demand on steel structures fabricated as job work. 2. Whether demands raised beyond permissible time limit. 3. Interpretation of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Requirement of "wilful" actions with intent to evade payment of duty. 5. Positive act by the assessee to attract extended recovery period. 6. Impact of recent judgment on dutiability of structures and parts thereof. Issue 1: Duty demand on steel structures fabricated as job work The judgment deals with the duty demand on steel structures and parts thereof fabricated by the appellants as job work under contracts. Issue 2: Demands raised beyond permissible time limit The appellant contends that the demands were raised beyond the permissible time limit as there was no 'wilful' suppression of facts by them with intent to evade payment of duty, necessary to attract the extended recovery period under Section 11A. Issue 3: Interpretation of proviso to Section 11A The proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allows for demands beyond the normal period up to five years in cases of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Issue 4: Requirement of "wilful" actions with intent to evade payment of duty The judgment emphasizes that the duty demand must result from "wilful" actions with intent to evade payment of duty by the assessee to attract the extended recovery period. Issue 5: Positive act by the assessee It is established that there must be a positive act by the assessee to bring them within the scope of the proviso, and mere failure to declare does not amount to wilful mis-declaration or suppression. Issue 6: Impact of recent judgment on dutiability The judgment notes that the issue of dutiability of structures and parts thereof was concluded in favor of the Revenue by a recent Larger Bench judgment, and during most of the period in question, the appellants' activity did not attract excise duty, indicating non-levy was not due to wilful acts to evade payment. In conclusion, the duty demands were set aside as raised beyond the permissible period of limitation, and the appeals were allowed based on the lack of wilful actions with intent to evade payment of duty and the absence of dutiability for a significant part of the period.
|
