Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (1) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ugar syrup was an intermediate product emerged in the process of manufacture of the final product. - there is substantial merit in the reasoning of the Tribunal and there is no case of suppression of fact for invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The issue relating to limitation is distinct and separate and there cannot be a demand if there is a clear finding that there is no case of suppression falling under proviso to Section 11A(1). We, therefore, confirm the order of the Tribunal answering the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - Decided against Revenue. - C.M.A.No.2117 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lso cleared under different brand names. The issue that arose before the Tribunal was whether an intermediate product called 'sugar syrup' emerging in the course of manufacture of the slice - branded product is marketable and if so, whether the demand of duty raised on the assessee for the period May, 1995 to April 1997 was time barred. 3. The case of the Department was that sugar syrup, which emerged in the course of manufacture of slice branded final product, during the period of dispute, was stable and has adequate shelf-life. Hence the same was marketable and accordingly, dutiable under SH 1702.30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Hence, show cause notice was issued to the assessee demanding duty under S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal came to hold that it is a dutiable goods till the date when exemption was granted. However, for the period in question, the Tribunal accepted the plea of limitation raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority holding as follows: 4. Now we turn to the surviving issue of limitation. The learned counsel has submitted that all the material facts were presented before the Department by the Shift Engineer of the appellants as early as in 1994. The veracity of this claim is beyond doubt inasmuch as, in one of the Annexures to the show-cause notice, the statement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the appeal is allowed to this extent. 7. The Tribunal, to come to the above conclusion, was guided by the fact that the Department has knowledge about the product as early as 1994 when all the material facts were placed before the Department. The Tribunal relied upon the letter of the assessee dated 08.9.1995, which clearly shows that the Department was aware that sugar syrup was an intermediate product emerged in the process of manufacture of the final product. 8. Yet another factor which weighed the mind of the Tribunal was the confusion that arose in the mind of the Department from time to time, namely, CBEC circular dated 25.7.1989, in which it is stated that sugar syrup had very short shelf-life and it is not marketable. The Bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arketable, but on the ground of limitation, it is held in favour of the assessee. 12. We find that there is substantial merit in the reasoning of the Tribunal and there is no case of suppression of fact for invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The issue relating to limitation is distinct and separate and there cannot be a demand if there is a clear finding that there is no case of suppression falling under proviso to Section 11A(1). We, therefore, confirm the order of the Tribunal answering the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates