9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 596 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period invoked - duty demand - Held that - It is a well settled law that when during the relevant period, there were decisions in favour of the assessee, he cannot be attributed with any mala fide so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. In fact, we find that in an identical case involving the same issue of insulation bricks and by taking note of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Industries 2000 (5) TMI 59 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI , which subsequently stand overruled by Supreme Court in the case of Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (8) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise-Delhi Vs. Sun Shine Industries (2015 (10) TMI 678 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has held that extended period would not be invokable due to uncertain legal podsition. As such we are of the view that issue of limitation is squarely covered by the above referred decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of using a brand name on goods for small scale exemption eligibility. 2. Demand of duty based on brand name inscription on insulation bricks. 3. Application of limitation period for demand of duty. Issue 1: Interpretation of using a brand name on goods for small scale exemption eligibility The case involved the manufacture of insulation bricks inscribed with the expression "ACINS-110" supplied to various units, including one specific customer. The Revenue contended that the inscription amounted to using the brand name of the customer, affecting the small scale exemption eligibility. The appellant argued that the inscription was necessary to identify the customer and did not constitute using the brand name for commercial purposes. The Lower Authorities disagreed, leading to a demand for duty. Issue 2: Demand of duty based on brand name inscription on insulation bricks The appellant's appeal challenged the demand of duty imposed due to the inscription on the insulation bricks. The appellant argued that during the relevant period, similar inscriptions were used by all manufacturers for customer identification purposes. The appellant relied on the interpretation of the law during that period, citing confusion and legal precedents in their favor. The appellant contended that the demand was not valid due to the limitation period, emphasizing the absence of mala fide intentions on their part. Issue 3: Application of limitation period for demand of duty The Tribunal considered the invocation of the extended period for demanding duty. It was noted that during the relevant period, legal interpretations and precedents favored the appellant's position. Citing a case where the extended period was not invoked due to uncertain legal positions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal held that the issue of limitation was covered, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues addressed, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision on each issue, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.
|
