2015 (9) TMI 408 - HC - Central Excise

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts - Held that - Once the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation raises a mixed question of fact and law, then the Tribunal found and on facts that assuming the larger period could have been invoked the Revenue / Department was aware that the assessee sold the goods from the depot piece meal. Once the Revenue was so aware and as found by the Tribunal on facts, then, the extended period could not have been invoked and applied. Any larger controversy and wider question was really not arising in the given facts and circumstances. by alleging suppression can the larger period be invoked and for that purpose a fresh show cause notice can be issued or not is a question which we keep open for decision in an appropriate case. We find that on facts the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order-in-original. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the following issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of the provision of section 11A regarding the extended period of limitation.
3. Justification of invoking the extended period of limitation in subsequent proceedings.
4. Reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in a specific case.
5. Allegations of suppression in show cause notices for different periods.
6. Adjudication of a show cause notice covering a specific period.
7. Setting aside of the order-in-original by CESTAT.
8. Examination of the invocation of extended period of limitation by the Tribunal.
9. Decision on whether a subsequent show cause notice can invoke a larger period of limitation based on earlier allegations of suppression.
10. Justification for interfering with the order-in-original.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the demand for excise duty, interest, and penalty on the respondent-assessee. The substantial questions of law admitted for appeal revolved around the interpretation of section 11A concerning the extended period of limitation.

2. The Revenue issued a show cause notice to the assessee for the period November 1992 to January 1996, alleging suppression and demanding duty, interest, and penalty. The order-in-original was passed based on this notice, which the assessee contested.

3. The main contention was that although suppression was observed by the Revenue, earlier show cause notices for different periods did not specifically allege suppression. The Tribunal found that since the Revenue was aware of the assessee's activities, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the period covered by the last show cause notice.

4. The assessee appealed to CESTAT, which set aside the order-in-original, leading to the appeal before the High Court. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order-in-original.

5. The High Court found that the Tribunal correctly decided the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation based on the facts of the case. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was based on a mixed question of fact and law, and there was no need to address larger controversies.

6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the invocation of the larger period for November 1992 to January 1996. The decision highlighted the importance of factual findings and the specific circumstances of the case in determining the application of the extended period of limitation.

7. The judgment left open the question of whether a subsequent show cause notice alleging suppression could invoke a larger period of limitation, indicating that this issue would be decided in a suitable case in the future. The High Court's decision focused on the specific facts and legal principles applicable to the case at hand, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.