2008 (1) TMI 760 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds benefit based on limitation, dismisses appeal on misdeclaration of excisable products.

The Tribunal affirmed the Lower Appellate Authority's decision to grant the Respondents the benefit based on the ground of limitation. The Department's ... Demand - Limitation - Extended period Issues:1. Benefit allowed on the ground of limitation.2. Allegation of deliberate misdeclaration of excisable products.3. Removal of goods with full knowledge of the Department.Analysis:1. The Lower Appellate Authority granted the Respondents the benefit based on the ground of limitation. The Department appealed, arguing that the Respondents deliberately misdeclared excisable products as 'Tyres and Tubes for power tiller' instead of stating their actual use as 'Off the road.' The Department contended that Power Tillers can only be used off the road, and thus, the assessing officers could have easily concluded the correct usage of the goods. However, it was found that the impugned goods were indeed for use off the road, which negated the allegation of deliberate misdeclaration. Therefore, the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department was deemed unjustified based on the facts presented.2. The Respondents, represented by Shri Roychaudhary, argued that the impugned goods were under physical control at the relevant time and were removed with the full knowledge of the Department. It was emphasized that since the goods were removed with the Department's awareness, charges of suppression or misstatement could not be validly imposed on the Respondents. This argument supported the Respondents' position that they did not engage in deliberate misdeclaration or any other misconduct regarding the excisable products in question.3. The Tribunal, comprising Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy and Shri D.N. Panda, JJ., concluded that the Lower Appellate Authority correctly decided to grant the Respondent's appeal on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision, thereby rejecting the Department's appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, affirming the Lower Appellate Authority's ruling in favor of the Respondents based on the limitation issue.