9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 6 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture - process of galvanization undertaken by the appellant on job-work basis - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The appellants have been carrying out the process of galvanization on job-work basis for the raw-materials supplier which has been in dispute since 1992. The dispute was finally settled in their favour by the judgment of this Tribunal in 2001. By virtue of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 73 of CETA in the Budget 2002, the process of galvanization was included in the scope of manufacture . Thereafter the audit carried out scrutiny of the records of the appellant in 2004 and recovered Rs. 24,746/- towards duty and Rs. 2,476/- as interest observing that the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 214/86 has not been observed undertaken in the said process of galvanization for unregistered manufacturers. Further in the audit conducted in November, 2006, the Department itself raised an objection holding the view that the process of galvanization since does not amount to manufacture, therefore service tax is applicable for carrying out the said process on job-work basis - Consequently, an amount of Rs. 9,32,846/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Six only) has been recovered as service tax from the appellant. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - It is difficult to sustain the order of the lower authorities holding that the appellant had suppressed the activity of process of galvanization carried out on job-work basis in their factory but not disclosed to the Department. Hence, extended period of limitation cannot be applicable for recovery of the duty on the process of galvanization carried out on job-work basis holding the said process as manufacture . The impugned order is set aside on the ground of limitation and Appeal is allowed only on limitation without any consideration on merit being not contested by the Appellant.
Issues Involved:
The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the demand is barred by limitation. Summary: Issue of Limitation: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing towers for transmission lines, undertook galvanization on a job-work basis. The dispute arose regarding whether galvanization amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act. The appellant contended that the demand is barred by limitation, citing instances where the process was known to the Department since 1992. The audit conducted in 2004 and 2006 raised objections related to duty payment and service tax for galvanization. The Tribunal held that the demand was not sustainable as the Department was aware of the process, and the appellant was not found to have suppressed any information. The order was set aside on the ground of limitation, allowing the appeal solely on the issue of limitation without considering the merit. Separate Judgement Delivered by the Judges: No separate judgement was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
