Appeal allowed based on limitation period, proper disclosures, no willful suppression.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. It found that the period in dispute was May 2013, and the show cause notice issued in February 2017 invoked the extended period of limitation. Due to proper disclosures made by the appellant and the absence of willful suppression, the demand of duty, interest, and penalty were set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.

---

---

Issues:
Demand of central excise duty on account of suo-motu duty adjustment of excess duty paid in March 2013 upheld by lower authorities - Appeal challenging the demand and penalty - Merits of the case and limitation aspect in dispute.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Merits of the Case
The appellant, engaged in coal production and sales, adjusted excess duty paid in March 2013 against short payment in May 2013. The authorities confirmed demand, penalty, and interest for not applying for a refund. The appellant argued that the adjustment was valid based on judicial precedents allowing such actions. The appellant also contended that proper disclosures were made, and there was no intention to evade tax. The appellant relied on tribunal decisions to challenge the larger bench decision cited by the authorities.

Issue 2: Limitation Aspect
The appellant raised the issue of limitation, arguing that disclosures were made in the ER-1 return for May 2013, and any dispute should have been raised within the normal time limit. The appellant claimed that since the department was aware of the excess duty adjustment, there was no suppression, and the extended period of limitation was not justified. The Revenue, however, supported the lower authorities' findings, citing the larger bench decision as settled law.

Judgment:
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, focused on the limitation aspect. The Tribunal found that the period in dispute was May 2013, and the show cause notice issued in February 2017 invoked the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the department was aware of the excess duty adjustment due to proper disclosures. Finding no willful suppression by the appellant, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation alone. Consequently, the demand of duty, interest, and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.

---