2014 (3) TMI 829 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of M/s. K.C. Alloys & Castings on revenue neutrality and limitation period

MONGA BROTHERS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA

The Tribunal allowed M/s. K.C. Alloys and Castings' appeal, citing Revenue neutrality and the limitation period, setting aside the demand for additional ... Duty demand - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Duty of Rs. 34 lakhs initially paid by the assessee also stands availed as Modvat credit by M/s. Monga Brothers Ltd., there could be no occasion or reason available to adjust their duty liability less by Rs. 80,650/-. As such, it cannot be held that there is any suppression of facts on their part. Otherwise also, we find that the duty was paid by the appellant in the year 2001 whereas the show cause notice questioned the correctness of the cost and was issued in the year 2005. As such, we are of the view that the demand is barred by limitation and the same is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Assessable value determination for steel ingots, Revenue neutrality, Limitation period for demand, Wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.Assessable Value Determination:The case involved M/s. K.C. Alloys and Castings manufacturing steel ingots sold to M/s. Monga Brothers Ltd. The Revenue alleged undervaluation of ingots, leading to a visit to the factory premises for valuation examination. The appellant recalculated the assessable value based on production cost, debiting differential duty. A show cause notice was issued in 2005 for additional duty. The Commissioner accepted the unit relationship and recalculated the cost, confirming a short demand of Rs. 80,650 and imposing a penalty. Both parties appealed.Revenue Neutrality:The Tribunal considered Revenue neutrality and limitation as key aspects. The duty paid by K.C. Alloys & Castings was available as credit to Monga Brothers Ltd., indicating no intention to evade duty. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that when duty paid by one unit is creditable to another, there is no wilful evasion, making the exercise Revenue neutral. As the duty was paid in 2001 and the notice issued in 2005, the demand was deemed barred by limitation, leading to setting aside of the demand.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal due to Revenue neutrality and limitation, setting aside the demand. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal against the dropped demand portion was rejected. The judgment emphasized the importance of Revenue neutrality in cases where duty paid by one unit benefits another, precluding allegations of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.