9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty from the assessee, in the case of misstatement or suppression or fraud or collusion even in evasion of Central Excise Duty for the period 5 years from show cause notice. In the case in hand, none of these ingredients appeared to have been brought out in the show cause notice. Be that as it may, since the mandate of first proviso of Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act only contemplates for the demand up to 5 years from the date of show cause notice, the demands raised on the amount extended as discount by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the period 2001-02 to 2004-05 is hit by limitation. Demand for the period 2005-06 - Held that:- There is nothing on record which indicates that the appellant herein had wilfully violated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed with the appellants and since it was not accepted a show cause notice dated 07.05.2010 was issued to the appellant for demanding Central Excise Duty on the discount allowed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the period 2001-02 to 2005-06. Appellant contested the show cause notice on limitation as well as on merits. The adjudicating authority, after following due process of law, confirmed the demands raised along with interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority who concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal. 3. Learned counsel, after taking the Bench through the entire case records submits that the lower authorities w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is to be understood from the fact that during the period in question, Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Mazagon Docks Ltd [2005 (187) ELT 3] had taken a view that subsidy is not an additional consideration. He would submit that discount offered by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is nothing but a subsidy when the sales tax deferment scheme is foreclosed. 4. Learned department representative, on the other hand, submits that the issue is now settled by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs Super Syncotex India Ltd [2014 (301) ELT 273] wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the discount extended by the State Governments are to be included in the violation of the goods manufactured when sales tax deferment scheme is opted f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Act only contemplates for the demand up to 5 years from the date of show cause notice, in our view the demands raised on the amount extended as discount by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the period 2001-02 to 2004-05 is hit by limitation. We hold so. 8. As regards the demand for the period 2005-06, which falls within the period of 5 years of the issuance of show cause notice, we find that firstly, there is no allegation which would indicate that appellant had an intention to evade the Central Excise Duty on such discount received on foreclosure of the deferred sales tax offered by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. There is nothing on record which indicates that the appellant herein had wilfully violated the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
