2014 (8) TMI 536 - AT - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - claiming duty exemption on furnace oil - Non fulfillment of conditions of Notification No.1/95-CE - Held that - As per the amended provisions, for claiming duty exemption on furnace oil, two conditions were required to be satisfied i.e., Furnace Oil is required for the boilers used in the textile mill and the procurement of such Furnace Oil duty free should be approved by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs on the recommendations of the Development Commissioner. In the facts of the case before us, there is no dispute that no approval from the Commissioner of Customs was obtained nor any recommendations were given by the Development Commissioner. Therefore, the respondent was clearly ineligible for the benefit of Notification No.1/95-CE. The appellant had also filed D-3 intimation for the procurement of the goods which was required to be verified by the department. Therefore, at the time of verification of the goods obtained duty free, the Bond officer should have examined whether the goods have been moved in accordance with law, which the Bond Officer has failed to do. Therefore, for the failure of the Bond Officer, who verified the receipt of the goods, the department cannot invoke extended period of time. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate authority that the department had knowledge of the entire transactions and yet they failed to issue show-cause notice within the normal period of time and consequently the demand become time barred cannot be faulted. - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Issues:
1. Reduction in penalty granted by the lower appellate authority
2. Dropping of demand of Rs. 14,32,141.28 by the lower appellate authority
3. Error in the computation of duty demand by the respondent
4. Confirmation of duty demand on Trade Samples Rejects/Seconds & waste
5. Abatement on penalty imposed by the lower appellate authority
6. Compliance with mandatory penalty requirements
7. Eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 1/95-CE
8. Time bar on duty demand

Analysis:

1. Reduction in Penalty:
The appeal challenges the reduction in penalty by the lower appellate authority, arguing that the condition for reducing penalty under Section 11AC was not fulfilled by the appellant. The duty demand of Rs. 3,67,479.28 was confirmed for goods cleared without payment of duty, and the appellant failed to pay the duty, interest, and 25% of the penalty within the stipulated time. The Tribunal held that the reduction in penalty was unsustainable in law as the condition for abatement was not met, and thus, the order was set aside.

2. Dropping of Demand:
Regarding the demand of Rs. 14,32,141.28, the respondent contended that there was an error in the computation, and the correct duty demand should be Rs. 10,64,662/-. The goods were procured under a certificate issued by the department, and the respondent claimed that the department was aware of the procurement, thus justifying the dropping of the demand. The Tribunal agreed that the demand was time-barred as the department failed to issue a show-cause notice within the normal period, and hence, upheld the dropping of the demand.

3. Compliance and Eligibility for Exemption:
The respondent argued that they were eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 1/95-CE and that the department had full knowledge of the procurement. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent did not fulfill the conditions for claiming the exemption, as approval from the Commissioner of Customs was not obtained. The duty demand was found to be time-barred due to the failure of the Bond Officer to verify the procurement properly.

4. Confirmation of Duty Demand:
The duty demand of Rs. 3,67,479.28 on Trade Samples Rejects/Seconds & waste was confirmed by both adjudicating and appellate authorities. The Tribunal upheld this confirmation, stating that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for failing to discharge the duty liability. The duty demand was deemed sustainable in law, and the abatement on penalty granted by the lower appellate authority was set aside.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal held the respondent liable to pay interest on the confirmed duty demand of Rs. 3,67,479.28 and the equivalent penalty under Section 11AC. The demand of Rs. 10,64,662/- was deemed time-barred, relieving the respondent from liability on this count. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing compliance with penalty requirements and eligibility for duty exemptions under specific notifications.

← Previous Next →