1999 (2) TMI 89 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal limits demand under Central Excises Act, ruling in favor of appellant. Allegations of mis-statement rejected.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, limiting the demand for the extended period under the Central Excises Act to six months. The allegations of ... Demand - Limitation - Extended period Issues:1. Consideration of submissions on the issue of limitation2. Allegations of mis-statement and suppression of facts for extended period demandAnalysis:Issue 1: Consideration of submissions on the issue of limitationThe judgment pertains to the consideration of submissions on the issue of limitation as per Misc. Order No. 281/92-A in E/ROM/14/91-A in Appeal No. E/1500/88-A. The Tribunal recalled the order to consider the issue of limitation regarding the show cause notice. The appellant argued that the demand for the extended period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises Act was not sustainable due to the absence of mis-statement or wilful suppression of facts. It was contended that all relevant facts were known to the authorities, and there was no concealment. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their claim that the demand was time-barred.Issue 2: Allegations of mis-statement and suppression of facts for extended period demandThe Senior Departmental Representative argued that the appellant had deliberately excluded certain expenses from the assessable value, leading to mis-statement and suppression of facts. Allegations included under-valuation of products, bifurcation of prices, and non-disclosure of certain transactions. It was claimed that the extended period was rightly invoked due to the intentional evasion of Central Excise duty. The Tribunal examined the records and found that the appellant had followed a consistent sales pattern known to the authorities. It was concluded that there was no justification for alleging mis-statement or suppression of facts by the appellant. Consequently, the demand for the extended period was deemed unwarranted, and the duty demand was limited to the normal six-month period under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944.In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of limitation and allegations of mis-statement and suppression of facts for an extended period demand under the Central Excises Act. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no basis for the allegations of mis-statement or suppression of facts, leading to the limitation period being restricted to six months. The decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.