2014 (8) TMI 322 - AT - Central Excise

Extended Period of limitation - commissioner set asides demands - Held that - There is no challenge by the Revenue with respect to the dropping of duty demands on account of time bar. Since there is no challenge in this regard, the finding of the lower appellate authority has to be upheld with respect to time bar. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal Nos. AT/M-III/100/2004 & AT/M-III/106/2004 dated 27/09/2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Dropping of Demands on Merits
The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the dropping of duty demands on merits by the lower appellate authority. The Revenue contested that the benefit of Notification No.64/95-CE dated 16/03/1995 could not be extended to rough forgings of iron and steel. However, the Revenue did not challenge the dropping of the demand on account of time bar. The learned additional Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the grounds mentioned in the appeal memorandum.

Issue 2: Legal Precedent and Argument
The counsels for the respondents argued that since there was no challenge to the time bar aspect and the demands were dropped on both merit and time bar, the demands were not sustainable. They cited the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in a similar case where the appeal challenged the dropping of demand on time bar, but the demands were dropped on merits by the Tribunal. The Apex Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on merits in that case. Similarly, in the present case, since there was no challenge to the time bar aspect by the Revenue, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

Issue 3: Judgment and Decision
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal observed that there was indeed no challenge by the Revenue regarding the dropping of duty demands on account of time bar. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision concerning the time bar issue. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and subsequently dismissed the appeals.

This judgment highlights the importance of challenging all relevant aspects of a decision and the consequences of not doing so. It also underscores the significance of legal precedent in determining the outcome of similar cases. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that failure to challenge a specific aspect of a decision could lead to the acceptance of that aspect as decided by the lower authority.