Excise Duty Demand Overturned Due to Late Show-Cause Notice; Appeal Allowed on Limitation Grounds Under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal held that the Appellant was liable to pay excise duty at the time of coal clearance between Area Offices within the same legal entity to uphold the Central Excise Act. However, the demand for duty was deemed unsustainable as the show-cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on limitation grounds, and the demand was set aside, granting the Appellant consequential relief as per law.

---

---

Issues involved:
The central excise duty demand against the Appellant for the period 2011-12 to 2014-15, pertaining to coal removal and payment of duty between different Area Offices within the same legal entity.

Central Issue:
The central issue in this case is whether the Appellant is liable to pay duty at the time of clearance of goods from one Area Office to another within the same legal entity, despite the ultimate payment of duty by the receiving Area Office.

Facts and Arguments:
The Appellant, engaged in coal production and sales, had separate registrations for each Area Office before obtaining a centralized registration in 2015. During the period in dispute, coal was transferred between Area Offices without immediate duty payment by the transferor, but the duty was paid by the transferee before selling the coal. The Appellant argued for revenue neutrality as the duty was paid by the receiving unit. They also contended that the show-cause notice issued beyond the limitation period was not valid.

Decision:
The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue neutrality but held that the Appellant was required to pay duty at the time of clearance to avoid rendering the Central Excise Act redundant. However, the Tribunal found that the entire demand was time-barred due to the delayed issuance of the show-cause notice. Therefore, while the Appellant was found liable to pay duty, the demand was deemed unsustainable due to the limitation issue.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed on the grounds of limitation, setting aside the demand confirmed in the impugned order. The Appellant was held liable to pay duty at the time of clearance, but the show-cause notice failed due to exceeding the limitation period. The decision granted the Appellant consequential relief as per law.

---