Appeal allowed for Appellant in Central Excise duty case based on good faith; demand set aside.

The appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant, M/s. Abdos Lamitubes Pvt. Ltd., in a Central Excise duty demand case. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation for raising the demand was not applicable as the Appellant acted in good faith based on Circulars and Tribunal judgments. The demand of Rs.56,78,807/- along with interest and penalty was set aside due to the absence of fault on the Appellant's part regarding the inclusion of VAT amount in the assessable value for Central Excise duty payment.

---

---

Issues:
- Central Excise duty demand against M/s. Abdos Lamitubes Pvt. Ltd.
- Inclusion of VAT amount retained in assessable value.
- Availability of extended period of limitation for raising demand.

Central Excise Duty Demand:
The appeal was filed against a demand of Central Excise duty of Rs.56,78,807/- along with interest and penalty. The Appellant, engaged in Lamitubes manufacturing, was retaining 99% of Sales Tax/VAT collected from buyers under the Assam Value Added Tax Act. A Show Cause Notice was issued to include the VAT amount retained in the assessable value for Central Excise duty payment, following the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case.

Inclusion of VAT Amount in Assessable Value:
The issue was settled in favor of the Revenue based on the Supreme Court's decision. However, the Appellant argued against the availability of the extended period of limitation for the Department. The Appellant cited various decisions and a CBEC Circular stating that the extended period of limitation should not apply in such cases. The Tribunal analyzed previous judgments and Circulars, concluding that the Appellant acted under a bona fide belief regarding the inclusion of VAT amount, thus making the duty demand time-barred.

Availability of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal referred to decisions like Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd and observed that the Appellant acted in good faith based on Circulars and Tribunal judgments. The High Court's observations in similar cases supported the Appellant's position. Considering the legal position and factual circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the demand due to the absence of fault on the Appellant's part. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law, emphasizing the non-sustainability of the demand on the limitation aspect.

---