1996 (9) TMI 373 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the order regarding the plea of limitation raised in the appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal concerning the plea of limitation raised in the appeal. The applicants contended that the demand of duty was barred by limitation of six months under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, as the alleged non-accountal of crown corks was detected in 1986, while the show cause notice was issued in 1989. The applicants argued that the Department's knowledge of the evasion of duty should be considered as the starting point of limitation, citing relevant case law. However, the Departmental Representative opposed the arguments, supporting the original order.

The Tribunal considered the submissions regarding limitation and the case law cited. It was noted that the relevant date for limitation purposes is determined based on the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. In cases involving suppression or wilful misstatement, the extended time limit of up to 5 years is applicable, starting from the relevant date as specified in the Act. The Tribunal distinguished the case law cited by the applicants, emphasizing that in the present case, the non-payment of duty was alleged to be due to factors like suppression, warranting the application of the longer time limit. The Tribunal clarified that the date of the Department's knowledge of the irregularity is not considered a relevant date under Section 11A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the plea of limitation raised by the applicants was rejected, and the original order confirming the demand of duty was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal treated the application as a request for rectification of mistake in the order passed, specifically addressing the issue of limitation raised in the appeal. The Tribunal clarified the relevant date for limitation purposes and rejected the argument that the starting point of limitation should be the date of the Department's knowledge of the alleged evasion of duty. The decision reaffirmed the application of the extended time limit in cases involving suppression or wilful misstatement, ultimately confirming the demand of duty against the applicants.