Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 470 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation Held that - There is no challenge by the department to the finding of the lower appellate authority on the question of limitation. As such, the Tribunal cannot go into the question that has not been raised by the department. Besides, when the relief has been given on two grounds i.e., both on merits and on limitation, and the department has chosen not to challenge the same on the count of limitation, it would be an infructuous exercise to go into the appeal on the ground of merit because the respondents would get the benefit in any case on the ground of limitation since the entire demand is for the extended period.
Issues:
1. Application of the extended period of limitation in a case. 2. Tribunal's authority to consider the extended period of limitation. 3. Department's challenge on the ground of limitation. 4. Tribunal's decision based on merits and limitation. 5. High Court's observation on the demand period. Analysis: 1. Application of the extended period of limitation: The appeal was remanded by the High Court with observations that the extended period of limitation was not applicable to the case based on the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)'s finding. The High Court emphasized that a demand cannot exceed six months from the due date as per Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. However, it was noted that the decision on the extended period of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, allowing the Tribunal to consider this aspect. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on this specific issue. 2. Tribunal's authority to consider the extended period of limitation: The Tribunal was directed by the High Court to reassess whether the extended period of limitation had been correctly invoked by the department. It was highlighted that the Tribunal had not previously addressed this question, and the High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The order of the Tribunal was set aside for this purpose, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the application of the extended period of limitation. 3. Department's challenge on the ground of limitation: The consultant for the respondents pointed out that the entire demand was based on the extended period of time, and the lower appellate authority had ruled in favor of the respondents on both merit and limitation. The department did not challenge the lower appellate authority's finding on the question of limitation. As a result, the Tribunal was deemed unable to consider an issue not raised by the department, especially when relief had been granted on both merit and limitation grounds. 4. Tribunal's decision based on merits and limitation: Given that the department did not challenge the lower appellate authority's decision on the limitation aspect, the Tribunal concluded that delving into the appeal on merit would be futile. The Tribunal noted that since relief had been granted on both merit and limitation grounds, the respondents would benefit from the limitation aspect regardless. Therefore, the Tribunal's consideration of the appeal on merit was deemed unnecessary. 5. High Court's observation on the demand period: The High Court's observation that there cannot be a demand beyond the period of six months was reiterated in the Tribunal's decision. Based on this observation and the lack of challenge by the department on the limitation ground, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, aligning with the High Court's stance on the demand period limitation. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, focusing on the application of the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal's authority to consider this aspect, the department's challenge on the limitation ground, the Tribunal's decision-making process based on merit and limitation, and the High Court's observation on the demand period limitation.
|