2013 (5) TMI 676 - SC - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - appeal against the order of tribunal 2003 (1) TMI 580 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI - held that - Having perused the declarations, for the periods ending 31st March, 1994 to 31st December, 1998, we are convinced that the finding referred by the Tribunal, namely, that the process of manufacture had been disclosed in the declarations cannot be faulted. - Against paragraph 9 of the said declarations, the process of manufacture has been stated as Billet/Steel - Cutting - Heating - Rolling - Cutting - Hole . Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in reversing the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the process of manufacture had not been disclosed in the declarations. - no demand - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's appeal based on the question of limitation.
2. Examination of the declarations filed by the assessee under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to determine if there was suppression of facts relating to the process of manufacture.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that there was no suppression of facts in the declarations filed by the assessee under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue contended that the extended period of limitation beyond six months from the date of the show cause notice should be applicable. The Court directed the Revenue to produce the original record containing the declarations to assess the genesis of the controversy, which led to the Tribunal's decision.

Upon examining the declarations filed by the assessee for the periods ending from March 1994 to December 1998, the Court found that the process of manufacture had been disclosed in the declarations. The process was stated as "Billet/Steel - Cutting - Heating - Rolling - Cutting - Hole" against paragraph 9 of the declarations. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to reverse the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that the process of manufacture had not been disclosed in the declarations.

Based on the factual position and the declarations reviewed, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding was not perverse and did not warrant interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit, and no costs were awarded. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the absence of suppression of facts in the declarations related to the process of manufacture, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.