Double demand on duty-paid clearances rejected; disclosed returns also defeated invocation of the extended limitation period.

Duty could not be confirmed again on cast steel articles where excise duty had already been paid on clearance through the PLA; any shortfall, if at all, related only to the separate duty liability on MS ingots under the compounded levy scheme, so the demand on the articles themselves was unsustainable. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the assessee had filed the statutory declaration and the clearances, duty payment and PLA debit were disclosed in RT-12 returns; suppression could not be alleged on facts already reflected in departmental records. The relief granted to the assessee was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty could again be confirmed on cast articles of steel when duty had already been paid on their clearance; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether duty could again be confirmed on cast articles of steel when duty had already been paid on their clearance.

Analysis: The goods in question had been cleared on payment of Central Excise duty through the PLA, and that factual position stood reflected in the record and the show cause notice. The Department's case was only that such duty payment had been adjusted against the total duty liability fixed for MS ingots under the compounded levy scheme. If any short payment existed, it related to the duty liability on MS ingots under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not to the cast articles themselves. A second confirmation of duty on the cast articles was therefore not justified.

Conclusion: The demand on the cast articles was not sustainable and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had filed the declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the clearances, duty payment and PLA debit were reflected in the RT-12 returns. Since the Department's case was founded on those very returns, suppression of facts could not be alleged. The extended period of limitation was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the finding on limitation was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appellate order failed on both merits and limitation, leaving no basis to disturb the relief granted to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty has already been paid on clearance of goods and the alleged shortfall pertains to a separate duty liability under a compounded levy scheme, the Department cannot confirm duty again on the same goods, and the extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression when the relevant facts are disclosed in statutory returns.

---