2018 (5) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Time limitation - suppression of facts - Held that - A perusal of the classification list filed by the appellant in the year 1991, 1992 & 1993 clearly show that the product has been correctly described and Revenue has accepted the classification claimed by the appellant - there was no mis-declaration on the part of the appellant as they had declared the product correctly and claimed the classification as per their understanding of the issue. No case has been made out by Revenue to sustain the invocation of longer period of limitation - appeal allowed on the ground of limitation.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of Central Excise duty demand, penalty imposition under Rule 173Q, confiscation of goods, and redemption fine by M/s Wockhardt Ltd.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by M/s Wockhardt Ltd. contested the order confirming Central Excise duty demand, penalty imposition under Rule 173Q, confiscation of goods, and redemption fine. The appellant argued that their case was similar to a precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of IFIUNIK Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in 1991. However, a different decision was made in the case of Mehta Pharmaceuticals Industries in 2016, where the Tribunal allowed benefits based on limitation grounds. The appellant claimed that they had accurately declared all facts to the Revenue, with classifications filed in 1991, 1992, and 1993 being approved by the Revenue. They argued that the extended period of limitation invoked was improper due to their accurate declarations and compliance with classification requirements.

The Authorized Representative (AR) relied on the impugned order and pointed out that the appellant should have been aware of the decision in the IFIUNIK Pharmaceuticals case from 1991 and followed it accordingly. The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the issue was not contested on merit. The classification lists filed by the appellant in 1991, 1992, and 1993 accurately described the product, which was accepted by the Revenue. The appellant had also filed RT-12 returns that were duly approved, indicating no mis-declaration on their part. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue was aware of the IFIUNIK Pharmaceuticals decision but did not modify the classification or issue a demand show-cause notice in time. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to make a case for invoking a longer period of limitation, and the appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, M/s Wockhardt Ltd., by allowing the appeal on the basis of limitation. The Tribunal emphasized the accurate declarations made by the appellant and the lack of justification for invoking an extended period of limitation by the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely actions by the Revenue in modifying classifications and issuing notices, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant in this case.