Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on NCCD levy issue

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appellant's appeal concerning the levy of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) used for manufacturing Polyester Texturised Yarn. The Tribunal found the demand for NCCD on POY to be time-barred due to the show cause notice being issued beyond one year, making the demand unsustainable under Section 11AC's proviso. The appeal was allowed solely on limitation grounds, with the Tribunal emphasizing the appellant's compliance with disclosure requirements and regular filings, ultimately setting aside the impugned order.

---

---

Issues:
Levy of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) falling under Chapter 5402 used captively for the manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant engaged in manufacturing Polyester Texturised Yarn using POY procured from job workers. The department demanded NCCD on the POY used captively, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that NCCD was not payable on goods under Chapter 5402, citing relevant judgments. They contended that the demand was time-barred, as the show cause notice was issued beyond one year for the period in question. The appellant highlighted their regular filing of ER-1 returns and the department's awareness of their manufacturing process. They also mentioned paying NCCD through excise duty credit, referencing settled cases. The issue was primarily one of interpretation of the exemption provided for NCCD. The Revenue reiterated the impugned order's findings.

The Tribunal examined the case, focusing on the limitation aspect. They noted the issue of levying NCCD on POY used for manufacturing Polyester Texturised Yarn and the relevant judgments favoring the appellant. Considering the appellant's disclosure of their manufacturing process and regular ER-1 filings, the Tribunal found no suppression of facts. As the show cause notice for the demand period exceeded one year, the demand under Section 11AC's proviso was deemed unsustainable due to limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed solely on limitation grounds, without delving into the case's merits.

The judgment, pronounced on 04.07.2022 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, highlighted the importance of the limitation aspect in deciding the case. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation of the NCCD exemption and the appellant's compliance with disclosure requirements and regular filings. By emphasizing the lack of suppression of facts and the time-barred nature of the demand, the Tribunal concluded in favor of the appellant solely on limitation grounds, setting aside the impugned order.

---