Sales tax concession retention not suppressible fact, extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) inapplicable for excise duty

CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant did not suppress facts regarding sales tax concession retention, as tribunal precedents supported non-inclusion in assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. Since VAT details were reflected in audited financial statements and no positive suppression act was proven, extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked. The demand confirmed through extended period was set aside, penalty was not imposable, and the matter was remanded for duty calculation within normal limitation period with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
The appeal was filed against the impugned order-in-Appeal dated 14.09.2017, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, rejecting the appeal as infructuous. The key issue was whether the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant should be included in the assessable value for the levy of Central Excise duty.

Issue 1: Res Judicata and Compliance with Previous Orders
The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as infructuous, citing that the adjudicating authority had complied with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a previous order. The Appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the issue had been previously decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Board Circular, making it no longer res integra. They sought allowance of the appeal based on these grounds.

Decision 1:
The Tribunal observed that the demand confirmed in the Order-in-Original remained upheld, and the Appellant's request to set aside the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period was not considered by the authorities. The Appellant's argument regarding the sales tax concession was found to be valid based on the Supreme Court's decision, leading to the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period being set aside.

Issue 2: Includability of Sales Tax Concession
The main issue revolved around whether the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant should be added to the assessable value for the levy of Central Excise duty. The Appellant contended that they had not suppressed any information and that the extended period should not be invoked in this case.

Decision 2:
The Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's argument, noting that there was no evidence of suppression of facts and that previous Tribunal decisions supported the Appellant's position. The demand confirmed by invoking the extended period was held to be liable to be set aside.

Significant Legal Reference:
The Tribunal referred to Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 issued by the Board, which clarified the acceptance of certain orders by the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Circular highlighted that the extended period would not be invocable in cases where there was no suppression of facts, as in the present appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period and the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. The appeal was disposed of by remand for calculating the duty payable for the normal period of limitation, with any consequential relief as per law.

---