Bona fide belief bars extended limitation for excise duty demand on site-assembled DG sets; related penalties also fail.

Central excise duty demand on site-assembled DG sets was held time-barred because the manufacturer acted under a bona fide belief supported by an existing departmental circular and trade notice, and there was no sustainable suppression of facts to justify the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal treated the assembly and clearance of DG sets as excisable goods under Heading 85.02, but confined recovery to the normal period and rejected the extended period invocation. Once the demand failed on limitation, the penalties imposed on the manufacturer, its officer, and customers under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were consequentially set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty on DG sets could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the penalties imposed on the manufacturer, its officer, and the customers could survive if the demand was time-barred.

Analysis: DG sets assembled and cleared by the manufacturer were treated as excisable goods classifiable under Heading 85.02, but the decisive question was limitation. The bona fide belief that site-assembled DG sets were not dutiable was founded on the earlier CBEC circular and the connected trade notice, and the same reasoning had already been applied by the Tribunal to confine the demand to the normal period. Since the entire demand in the present case related to a period beyond six months from the relevant date, the extended period could not be invoked. Once the demand failed on limitation, the penalties imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were only consequential.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the penalties on all appellants were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessees succeeded because the revenue demand was held unsustainable on limitation, with all connected penalties falling with it.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee acts under a bona fide belief supported by an existing departmental circular, the extended period of limitation for recovery of duty cannot be invoked in the absence of sustainable suppression of facts, and penalties dependent on the demand cannot survive.

---