2002 (9) TMI 528 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation and penalties imposed by Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Alleged ineligible credit availed by the appellant.
3. Suppression of facts and application of extended period of limitation.
4. Merits of the case regarding discrepancies in receipt of components.
5. Reopening of assessment at the receiving end.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order by the Commissioner confirming duty demand of Rs. 64,81,078/-, penalties under Rule 57-I(4) and Rule 173-Q(1)(bb), and interest under Rule 57-I(5) for the period from August 1994 to September 1997. The appellant, a motor vehicle manufacturer, faced allegations of availing ineligible credit under Rule 57-I. The Commissioner's order was contested on the grounds of limitation and merit, with detailed replies provided to show cause notices.

2. The appellant was accused of availing ineligible credit amounting to Rs. 1.44 crores during the specified period. The show cause notice highlighted discrepancies in receiving components from Ennore factory, leading to the improper declaration of inputs and duty credit. The appellant argued against the demand, citing awareness by the department of their practices and prior show cause notices on similar issues.

3. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, rejected the appellant's contentions on limitation, citing suppression of facts due to the lack of intimation about continuing practices. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on limitation grounds, emphasizing the department's awareness of the appellant's procedures. The demand under the show cause notice dated 4-8-99 was deemed barred by limitation.

4. On the merits of the case, the appellant contended that excesses in component receipt were offset by shortages, and discrepancies were due to various reasons like despatch errors. The appellant detailed the accounting procedures and explanations for discrepancies, asserting compliance with duty payment requirements and proper documentation.

5. The appellant argued against a different assessment at the receiving end without reopening the assessment at the Ennore factory. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this contention due to the finding that the demand was time-barred. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant all consequential reliefs.