2019 (1) TMI 1663 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed as demand under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was time-barred

M/s Gupta Metal Sheets Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST- Faridabad-I

The appellate tribunal held that the demand raised under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for goods removed during a dacoity incident was ... Remission of duty - time limitation - removal of goods due to the dacoity took place in the factory premises of the appellant at the night of 30.04.1999 and 01.05.1999 which has been intimated by the appellant to the authorities below on 10.05.1999 whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 21.12.1999 - whether the demand under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be raised against the appellant after 6 months from the date of filing the remission claim by the appellant before the appropriate authority or not? HELD THAT:- The SCN is required to be issued within 6 months from the date of intimation of the lost of the goods by the appellant. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has been intimated to the department that dacoity took place on the night of 03.04.1999 and 01.05.1999 on 10.05.1999 and claimed remission of duty on the goods looted in the dacoity. Thereafter, the show cause notice has been issued on 21.12.1999 for recovery of duty of goods looted in dacoity - Admittedly, the SCN issued to the appellant beyond the period of 6 months as prescribed under Rule 9 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand raised against the appellant is barred by limitation - SCN issued to the appellant is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved: Appeal against demand raised under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for goods removed due to dacoity, issue of limitation regarding show cause notice.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against an order where demand was raised under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for goods removed during a dacoity incident. The appellant notified the authorities about the dacoity on 10.05.1999, and a show cause notice was issued on 21.12.1999. The authorities confirmed the demand for the looted goods, stating that duty is payable on manufactured goods. The appellant argued that the show cause notice is time-barred, making the demand unsustainable.2. The main issue was whether the demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be raised against the appellant after 6 months from the date of filing the remission claim. The rule states that duty must be paid upon written demand made within the specified period. The appellant informed the department about the dacoity on 10.05.1999 and requested remission of duty for the looted goods. However, the show cause notice was issued on 21.12.1999, beyond the 6-month period prescribed by the rule. Consequently, the demand raised against the appellant was held to be time-barred, rendering the show cause notice unsustainable.3. The presiding member found that the show cause notice was issued beyond the 6-month limit specified in Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As a result, the demand against the appellant was deemed barred by limitation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the appellate tribunal.