2004 (10) TMI 534 - AT - Central Excise

Supreme Court remands case for limitation assessment on show cause notice

KHAITAN ELECTRICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

KHAITAN ELECTRICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 844 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Limitation period for issuance of show cause notice, Misdeclaration of assessable value, Suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.Analysis:1. Limitation period for issuance of show cause notice:The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal specifically on the issue of limitation. The appellant argued that there was uncertainty in the law regarding the inclusion of regulators' value in the value of fans for excise duty purposes. The Court directed the Tribunal to examine whether the statements made by the appellants in the price lists were correct and what effect they would have. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and remitted the matter for examination solely on the question of limitation and penalty. The appeal was partly allowed on this ground.2. Misdeclaration of assessable value:The appellant contended that they had filed a price list clearly stating that complete fans without regulators were being cleared and sold by them. They procured regulators from other manufacturers, maintained separate records and stocks for regulators, and cleared fans and regulators under separate invoices. The Revenue alleged that the appellant did not declare in the price list that they were clearing fans without regulators, leading to a suppression of material facts with an intent to evade duty. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had correctly declared in the price list regarding fans without regulators, which they were manufacturing and clearing separately. As the Revenue was aware of this practice and had approved assessments for these fans, the Tribunal concluded that there was no misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant.3. Suppression of facts with intent to evade duty:The Revenue claimed that the appellant suppressed material facts by not including the price of regulators in the price list, thereby evading duty. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had declared the price of complete fans without regulators in the price list and had obtained permission to bring duty-paid regulators into the factory. As the Revenue did not dispute these facts and the assessments for these fans were approved, the Tribunal held that there was no intent to evade duty. Consequently, the demand was considered time-barred and set aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of limitation period, misdeclaration of assessable value, and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.