9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 143 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - charge of suppression - Held that - Nothing was asked from the appellant. Only on 8.4.2008, first time the sale invoice of the chassis manufacturer was asked from the appellant as the same was not in possession of the appellant, the appellant showed their inability to provide the same and thereafter they summoned to the chassis manufacturer to provide such details which were provided. As the sale invoice of the chassis manufacturer was not in possession of the appellant, therefore, the appellant was not in a position to provide the same to the department. In that way, it cannot be said that as the appellant has not supplied the complete details regarding the sale price of the chassis manufacturer and same attracts to suppression, therefore, the charge of suppression stands not proved The extended period of limitation is not invokable at all. Therefore, the demand pertaining to the period prior to March, 2008 are held as barred by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of extended period of limitation. 2. Method of valuation under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 3. Imposition of penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation should not be invoked, citing that they had informed the Department about their valuation method on 1st April 2007. The Department, however, claimed that the appellant deliberately did not provide the sale invoice of the chassis manufacturer, constituting suppression of facts. The Tribunal found that the appellant had disclosed their valuation method and that the Department did not act within the normal limitation period. Therefore, the charge of suppression was not proved, and the extended period of limitation was deemed not invokable. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. CCE, Bombay, which emphasized that suppression must be deliberate to escape duty payment. 2. Method of Valuation Under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000: The appellant admitted that on merits, they had no case in light of the decisions in Audi Automobiles and Hyva (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal confirmed that the appellant was liable to pay duty as per Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules, 2000, which required duty payment on the sale price of the chassis manufacturer. The Tribunal held that the appellant must pay duty on the value determined as per Rule 10A. 3. Imposition of Penalty: The Department argued that the appellant's actions reflected an intention to evade duty, justifying the imposition of a penalty. However, the Tribunal found that the dispute was related to the interpretation of valuation rules, and the appellant had disclosed their method of valuation to the Department. The Tribunal cited previous decisions, including Audi Automobiles and Hyva (India) Pvt. Ltd., where penalties were set aside due to the interpretative nature of the valuation dispute. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Judgment: - The demand for the normal period of limitation was confirmed along with interest. - The demand for the period beyond the normal period of limitation was set aside. - The penalty was also set aside. The appeal was disposed of with these observations and the operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.
|
