2018 (11) TMI 897 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal limits demand period, no penalty imposed under Section 11AC. Employees' appeals allowed. Revenue arguments rejected.

The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, limiting the demand to the normal period. No penalty was imposed on the ... Rectification of mistake - issue of extended period of limitation not considered - error apparent on the face of record - Held that:- There is an error on the part of this Tribunal in not deciding the issue of limitation. Under the facts and circumstances we appreciate the error on record. Further considering the facts and circumstances and the rival contentions we hold that the issue involved, as held by this Tribunal in the Final Order is simply of classification and/or interpretation. Accordingly, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not available to revenue and accordingly the demand shall be limited to normal period of limitation only. Further there is no discussion with regard to penalty imposed on the appellant-company. In view of the facts and circumstances we allow this ground and hold that no penalty is imposable on company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. So far the other two appellants are concerned namely, Vijay Singhvi and D.I. Desarda who were the employees of the company and have been visited with penalty as noticed by Tribunal in Para 2 of the Final Order. However, we find that in the aforementioned final order, neither there is any discussion with respect to their appeals nor there is any express rejection of their appeals. Thus, we are satisfied that appeals of the two individuals need to be considered and decided Application disposed off. Issues:1. Applicability of extended period of limitation.2. Imposition of penalty on the company.3. Consideration of appeals of the employees.4. Contumacious conduct of the employees.5. Recall of the Final Order for the employees.6. Arguments regarding deliberate issuance of invoices.Analysis:1. The issue of the applicability of the extended period of limitation was raised by the company-appellant and the two employees in their ROM Applications. The Tribunal acknowledged the ground of limitation but found an error in not deciding it explicitly in the Final Order. The Tribunal held that the issue at hand was primarily a classification and interpretation dispute, concluding that the extended period of limitation was not available to the revenue, limiting the demand to the normal period of limitation only.2. The Tribunal noted a lack of discussion on the penalty imposed on the appellant-company in the Final Order. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that no penalty was imposable on the company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, citing relevant case laws to support this decision.3. The appeals of the two employees, Vijay Singhvi and D.I. Desarda, were addressed as they were visited with penalties. The Tribunal found no contumacious conduct against the employees and decided to recall the Final Order for them. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the employees were set aside, and their appeals were allowed with consequential benefits.4. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Revenue regarding the deliberate issuance of invoices by the appellants. The Revenue relied on specific case laws to support their position. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contentions and allowed the miscellaneous applications in favor of the appellants, entitling them to consequential benefits as per the relevant Board Circular.5. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and consideration of each issue raised in the case, along with the application of relevant legal principles and precedents, led to a comprehensive and just decision in favor of the appellants. The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing all grounds raised by the parties and ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.