9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 474 - HC - Central ExciseAlleged suppression of assessable value of the goods - assessee engaged in manufacturing of M.S.pipes undertook job work of fabrication of M.S.pipes at the site provided by Essar Projects Limited - Revenue contended mis-declaration and non-disclosure on ground that goods cleared were exclusive of cost of free facilities provided by the supplier of inputs - extended period of limitation - Held that - Tribunal observed that it could be seen from the challan/ invoice that the address given therein was c/o Essar Projects Ltd and the description of the goods was specifically stated as M.S. Fabricated pipes from your supplied free issue material on job work basis. Scope of the work of the assessee as well as that of the Essar was indicated in the work order, hence the same was within knowledge of the Revenue. Therefore, SCN could not have been issued as it was time barred. Further, pipes were captively consumed by Essar. In the facts and circumstances, it is confirmed that there was no suppression with intention to evade duty - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Filing of RT 12 Returns without the required Declaration under Rule 173 C of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Justification of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's conclusion on suppression by the Respondent. 4. Validity of the Tribunal's decision in allowing the Respondent's Appeal. Analysis: Issue 1 - Filing of RT 12 Returns without Rule 173 C Declaration: The case involved the Respondent, engaged in manufacturing M.S. pipes, availing Cenvat credit. Central excise officers found discrepancies in the records, leading to a show-cause notice for evasion of excise duty. The Tribunal considered the Respondent's filing of RT12 returns with duty paying documents, indicating no suppression of facts regarding goods manufactured. The Tribunal noted the disclosure of relevant facts and dismissed the appeal, concluding no intention to evade duty. Issue 2 - Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: The show-cause notice demanded excise duty, interest, and penalties under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found no suppression by the Respondent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Respondent's compliance with filing returns and duty paying documents during the relevant period, indicating no intent to evade duty. Issue 3 - Justification of Tribunal's Conclusion on Suppression: The Tribunal's decision was supported by the fact that the Respondent's job work of fabricating M.S. pipes at the site provided by another entity was known to the Revenue authorities. The Tribunal highlighted that the goods were captively consumed, leading to the application of Valuation Rules, 2000. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression by the Respondent to evade duty. Issue 4 - Validity of Tribunal's Decision in Allowing the Appeal: The Tribunal's decision to allow the Respondent's appeal was based on the absence of suppression of material facts and the disclosure of relevant information through filing of returns and duty paying documents. The Tribunal's findings were considered justified, as no perversity was demonstrated in the appreciation of the facts and documents on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the absence of suppression by the Respondent and the proper disclosure of relevant facts through filing returns and duty paying documents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
