2014 (12) TMI 1130 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Rules Against Revenue's Appeal; Deems SAD and CVD Demands Unsustainable; Penalties u/s 11AC Set Aside.

M/s STI Industries Versus CCE Daman & Vice versa

M/s STI Industries Versus CCE Daman & Vice versa - 2015 (327) E.L.T. 514 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues involved:Appeal against demand of Special Additional Duty (SAD) and Central Value Duty (CVD) on goods cleared to own DTA unit, validity of demand based on computation without proper reasoning, applicability of extended period of limitation, plea of revenue neutrality, imposition of penalties under Section 11AC.Analysis:1. Demand of SAD on goods cleared to own DTA unit:The case involved an appeal against the demand of SAD on goods cleared by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to its own Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit. The appellant argued that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in various judgments. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the demand of SAD on goods cleared to its own DTA unit was not sustainable. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed on this issue.2. Demand of CVD and applicability of extended period of limitation:Regarding the demand of CVD, the Tribunal noted that the demand was confirmed based solely on a computation without proper reasoning provided in the show cause notice or the order. The appellant argued that the demands were not supported by any valid grounds and that the quantification was incorrect. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the demand lacked a proper basis and reasoning, making it unsustainable. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the plea of revenue neutrality, noting that the goods were cleared to a sister concern with credit available, making the issue revenue neutral. As there was no deliberate evasion of duty and no malafide intention, the demands raised by invoking the extended period of limitation were deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal held that only the demand falling under the normal period of limitation was sustainable. Penalties imposed were also set aside due to the lack of intention to evade duty.3. Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant to the extent that the demands of CVD raised by invoking the extended period of limitation were not sustainable. The demand of CVD under the normal period was upheld. The penalties imposed under Section 11AC were set aside. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, and cross objections filed by the assessee were also disposed of.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a detailed overview of the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.