9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding the free supply of sand made by Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad and as per the department, the said free supply should be included in the transaction value for the purpose of payment of duty. The learned Commissioner, after analyzing all the submissions of the party, vide detailed impugned order, has confirmed the demand only for the normal period and has come to the conclusion that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as the respondent had a bona fide belief that the levy on free supply is not to be included in the transaction value. Further, it is also found that the invocation of extended period of limitation is totally unwarranted in the present case because the Revenue has not been able to establish any of the ingredients mentioned in Section 11A(1) of the Act for invoking the extended period of limitation. Further, the respondent had acted bona fidely as per the clauses of the purchase orders received by them from the Regional Director, HRPU, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad, a unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India and there was no wilful act or omission of any kind whatsoever on their part leading to mens rea for invoking the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the supplier and also the fact of non-inclusion of the value of the said raw material in the value of final products manufactured by them from the knowledge of the department with intent to evade payment of central excise duty and therefore, extended period of limitation as envisaged in proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act has been invoked to recover the duty said to be short paid. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was also proposed. The respondent filed reply to the show cause notice. 2.4 After following the due process, the learned Adjudicating Authority, vide the impugned order, dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent in the show cause notice by holding that in the absence of any evidence that the respondent were aware that the value of the materials supplied free of cost was required to the goods manufactured by them, it is not possible to saddle the respondent with the demand beyond the normal period of limitation. Aggrieved by the said findings of learned Adjudicating Authority, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned Authorized Representative for the appellant-Revenue. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STR 386 (Tri. Del.) * Bharti Cellular Ltd vs. CCE, Delhi - 2006 (3) STR 423 (Tri. Del.) * Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 1984 (16) ELT 579 (Tribunal) 4.5 The learned Authorized Representative further submits that the Tribunal while defining the meaning of 'bona fide belief' in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (supra), has held that "Bona fide belief does not mean a blind belief or a self opinionated belief. It would imply a belief which has been reached after a sincere attempt to understand the issue and examine it reasonably." 5.1 On the other hand, in their written submissions, the respondent have submitted that the reasoning given by the Revenue for demanding the duty is totally unjustified. The respondent have further submitted that they were not even required to pay any duty of central excise on the said ZDF on the ground that the same is not covered within the meaning of expression "excisable goods" under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has also been submitted by the respondent that they are engaged in manufacture of ZDF to the specific needs of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty as provided in the proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, for invoking the extended period of limitation of five years are totally absent in the present case. Further, the respondent have stated that the show cause notice was issued on the basis of information/details supplied by the respondent based on their records, therefore, the allegation of wilful suppression of facts is totally incorrect and legally unsustainable and the longer period of limitation is not applicable in the present case. In this regard, the respondent have relied on the following decisions: a) P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd vs. CCE - 2010 (249) ELT 232 (Tribunal) b) Petro Carbon Industries vs. CCE - 2008 (228) ELT 458 (Tribunal) c) Continental Foundation Jt Venture vs. CCE - 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) d) Pamini Products Ltd vs. CCE - 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) 6. After considering the submission of the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue as well as the written submissions made the respondent, we find that the respondent were manufacturing ZDF for the specific needs of Nuclear Fuel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
