9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ically held that extended period is not available to the Revenue and demand should be restricted to six months period - Having held that the earlier order, in clear terms, restricts the demand to a period of 6 months, we need not examine the intention of the Members writing the judgement - Revenue's appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded for quantification of duty for a period of 6 months in respect of each SCNs issued to the respondents. - E/354/2004 - Final Order No.444/2012 - Dated:- 2-5-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. Shri Parmod Kumar, SDR For the Appellant/s Shri N. Venkatraman, Sr. Advocate, Shri Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate For the Respondent/s Per Archana Wadhwa Being aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner on 17.11.2000 confirming the total demands of Rs.3,09,62,619/- covered by three SCNs and imposing penalty of Rs.75 lakhs. The said order of the Commissioner was appealed against by the respondents before the Tribunal. Vide Majority Order No.681/02 dt. 31.5.02, the Tribunal remanded the matter for re-determination of classification issue and held that demand of duty has to be restricted to 6 months period only. 6. During the de novo proceedings, the respondents contested before the Commissioner that inasmuch as the classification is being changed in terms of the Board s circular dt. 14.7.94, the demand of duty should be confirmed only for the prospective period. For the above proposition, they relied upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were approved or not. In such a scenario, it is his submission that the entire duty raised against the respondents by invoking the longer period of limitation is required to be confirmed. 9. Countering the arguments, learned Senior Advocate Shri N.Venkatraman, submits that the earlier remand order of the Tribunal specifically observed that the Board s circular is effective only prospectively. In an identical matter, the Tribunal in the case of Southern Switch Gear Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai - 2003 (155) ELT 145 (Tri-Chennai) has held that the demand should have been confirmed by the lower authorities w.e.f. 14.7.94 onwards i.e. from the date of issuance of the Board s circular. He also relies upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE Po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. We keep the same, to be redetermined in the remand proceedings Order Per Shri Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T) 18. I am also in agreement with the finding? recorded by learned Member (T) in para 3(e) at page 7 that as there was no suppression of facts the proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked for demand of duty. I also agree with the view taken by learned Member (T) Shri S.S. Sekhon that the demands have to be restricted to six months only following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Muzzaffarnagar Steel reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 552, page, 555 as contained in page 8 of the order recorded by present case. Therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked for demand of duty in the absence of deliberate suppres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings, he was bound by the observations made by the Tribunal and the findings arrived at. It was not open to the Commissioner to restrict and quantify the demand for a period lesser than 6 months from the date of issuance of the SCN. His reliance to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd. for restricting the demand to a period from 14.7.94 to 31.7.94 is not proper inasmuch as in that case, directions were given by the earlier order of the Tribunal to restrict the demand for that period. In fact, when the matter came before the Tribunal in the second round of litigation, the Bench observed that the directions given by the Tribunal to lower authorities were required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Members, the same makes it clear that the Board s circular has to be given prospective effect only. Having held that the earlier order, in clear terms, restricts the demand to a period of 6 months, we need not examine the intention of the Members writing the judgement. 15. Ld. Advocate has also referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE Pondicherry Vs Macro Controls - 2007 (214) ELT 547 (Tri.-Mum) wherein the Board s order issued under Section 37B was held to be effective only prospectively. ,We, at the cost of the repercussion, make it clear that we are not deciding the said issue for the first time inasmuch as the same already stands decided. As such, ld. Advocates reliance on the Tribunal s decision holding to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
