Appellant not liable for duty due to time-barred notices; emphasizes timely compliance and statutory limitations.

The Tribunal held that the appellant PSU was liable to pay duty on goods cleared but ruled in favor of the appellant due to the demand notices being time-barred. The appellant's liability for non-payment of Central Excise Duty and Clean Energy Cess was acknowledged, yet the demand raised in the show-cause notices for the period from 2011 to 2015 was deemed barred by limitation. The judgment emphasized the necessity of timely compliance with duty payment obligations and adherence to statutory limitation periods, ultimately providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of non-payment of Central Excise Duty and Clean Energy Cess by a PSU engaged in mining and selling coal from its various units, leading to a dispute regarding the duty liability and the applicability of the limitation period.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Liability for non-payment of duty
The appellant, a PSU engaged in mining and selling coal, faced a dispute regarding the non-payment of Central Excise Duty and Clean Energy Cess during the period from March 2011 to March 2015. The Area Offices of the appellant, before obtaining Centralized Excise Registration, transferred coal to other offices without depositing the required duties. However, the transferee offices paid the duties and issued excise invoices to buyers. The Central Excise Authorities were aware of this practice. Despite the situation being one of revenue neutrality, the appellant was held liable to pay duty at the time of clearance from the transferor unit to ensure compliance with the Central Excise Act.

Issue 2: Limitation period for demand
The show-cause notices for demanding Central Excise Duty and Clean Energy Cess were issued beyond the limitation period, which was a key argument raised by the appellant. The notices were received in May 2016, while the period in question was from 2011 to 2015. The extended period of limitation was invoked by the authorities for issuing the demand notices. The Tribunal held that the entire demand was barred by limitation due to the delayed issuance of the show-cause notices.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled that while the appellant was liable to pay duty on the goods cleared, the demand raised in the show-cause notices was time-barred. Therefore, the appeals were allowed on the grounds of limitation, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely compliance with duty payment obligations and the significance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in such cases.

---