2018 (7) TMI 16 - HC - Central Excise

High Court affirms Tribunal decision in Central Excise case, stressing no suppression of facts by assessee. Appeal dismissed.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus POLYCAB WIRES PVT. LTD.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a Central Excise case, emphasizing the absence of suppression of facts by the assessee. The Court ... Time Limitation - demand on the ground that the assessee wrongly availed of the benefit of exemption notification on electric wires - Held that:- The principle is, when all the facts necessary to be disclosed by the assessee have been disclosed and there cannot be any allegation of suppression, then, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - In the present case, there is no suppression of facts - extended period cannot be invoked - appeal dismissed.. Issues:1. Appeal against Tribunal's order on limitation in a Central Excise case.Analysis:The High Court dealt with an appeal against the Tribunal's decision dated 18th March, 2015, which challenged the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) order. The case involved a demand of duty for the period from December 2000 to March 2003, along with interest and penalty, due to the alleged incorrect availing of exemption notification on electric wires. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original solely on the point of limitation, without delving into the merits of the case.The Revenue contended that the appeal raised substantial questions of law, particularly challenging the finding on limitation. The argument was that the Tribunal failed in its duty as a fact-finding authority by not independently assessing the case but merely endorsing the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The Court, upon reviewing the appeal papers and the order under appeal, disagreed with the Revenue's stance. It emphasized the importance of considering the entire order rather than isolated paragraphs or sentences. The Commissioner (Appeals) had determined that there was no suppression of facts by the assessee, as all relevant information was disclosed in the returns, and the department had the obligation to investigate further based on the disclosed facts.The Court found no perversity in the concurrent orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. It concluded that there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the appeal, stating that it raised no substantial question of law. The judgment highlighted the principle that if all necessary facts are disclosed by the assessee, and there is no suppression, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the absence of suppression in the case, aligning with the Commissioner (Appeals) findings.In summary, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the importance of a thorough investigation by the department when no suppression of facts is evident, and endorsing the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal's decisions based on the lack of legal errors in the case.