9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 490 - AT - Central ExciseGoods supplied against international competitive bidding are chargeable to nil rate of duty - Exemption under N/N. 06/2002-C.E. dated 01.03.2002 as amended and N/N. 06/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 as amended - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - From the permission letters issued by the Assistant Commissioner, it is observed that the Assistant Commissioner has categorically allowed the appellant to clear the goods without payment of duty and the appellant has also intimated the clearance details in the E.R.-1 returns filed by them. Therefore, it is found that the appellant has not suppressed any information from the department. Thus, the intention to evade payment of duties does not exist in this case. Hence, the demand of Central Excise Duty confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. The demand in the instant case has been raised for the period from 2005-06 to 2006-07 vide the Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2010. Thus, the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order is barred by limitation. Hence, the entire demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation. Since, the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise. The impugned order is set aside on the ground of limitation - appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming demand of Central Excise Duty, interest, and penalty u/s Notification No. 06/2002-C.E. and Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. for clearance of goods without payment of duty.
Summary: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of Central Excise Duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant had cleared excisable goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 06/2002-C.E. and Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. The appellant argued that they had fulfilled the conditions prescribed in the notifications and had not suppressed any information from the department. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had allowed them to clear the goods without payment of duty and the appellant had intimated the clearance details in the E.R.-1 returns. The Tribunal observed that the demand raised for the period from 2005-06 to 2006-07 was barred by limitation as the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside on the ground of limitation, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. In the judgment, it was noted that M/s. NTPC was the International Bidder who engaged M/s. BHEL as a sub-contractor. The goods supplied by the appellant were meant for execution of the work order awarded to M/s. NTPC under international competitive bidding. The Tribunal observed that the excisable goods manufactured and supplied by the appellant were eligible for clearance without payment of duty as per the relevant notifications. The appellant had approached the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for permission to remove the goods without payment of duty, which was granted. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not suppressed any information from the department and held that the intention to evade payment of duties did not exist in this case. Therefore, the demand confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal concluded that since the demand was barred by limitation, the entire demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order was liable to be set aside. As a result, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty did not arise. The impugned order was set aside on the ground of limitation, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
|
