2008 (9) TMI 22 - SC - Central Excise

Excess footwears not accounted demand & penalty on Firm and the partners, & the Bata India Ltd. to whom the shoes were supplied - appeal filed by the Bata India Ltd. was accepted - composite appeal filed by the Firm & the partners was partly accepted in the case of partners - held that in the absence of any challenge by Revenue to the order passed in favour of Bata India Ltd. & the partners, the appeal against the Firm could not be proceeded with moreover larger period is also not invokable

Summary

Issues:
1. Invocation of extended period of limitation under Sec.11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Exemption under Exemption Notification No.49 of 1986.
3. Show cause notices and demand confirmation against the Firm and partners.
4. Tribunal's decision on limitation and acceptance of Bata India Ltd.'s appeal.
5. High Court writ petition challenging Tribunal's order.
6. Tribunal's decision on the appeal against the Firm.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal found the Revenue unjustified in invoking the extended period of limitation under Sec.11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The raid on the Firm's units led to show cause notices being issued for irregularities in both units. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of challenge to the order favoring Bata India Ltd. and partners, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the respondent.

2. The respondent-assessee firm had two units, with Unit No.1 having a central excise license while Unit No.2 operated without a license, availing exemption under Exemption Notification No.49 of 1986. The raid revealed discrepancies in both units, resulting in show cause notices and demands against the Firm, partners, and Bata India Ltd., the recipient of the unaccounted footwear.

3. Two sets of appeals were filed, one by the Firm and partners, and the other by Bata India Ltd. The Tribunal partially accepted the composite appeal, confirming the demand against the Firm. Notably, the Revenue did not challenge the decision favoring Bata India Ltd. and partners, leading to the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal against the respondent.

4. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Tribunal's order on merits and limitation. The High Court accepted the challenge, remitting the case back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, reiterated the Revenue's unjustified invocation of the extended period of limitation and the inability to proceed with the appeal against the Firm due to the unchallenged decision in favor of Bata India Ltd. and partners.

5. The Supreme Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the acceptance of the decision in Bata India Ltd.'s case and the lack of factual changes warranting a separate appeal against the respondent. The dismissal of the appeal against the Firm was upheld, with no costs awarded in the matter.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues and the Tribunal's, High Court's, and Supreme Court's decisions regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation and related matters in the legal judgment.