Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in duty demand case, citing disclosure of details and time-barred demands.

The Tribunal set aside the duty demand confirmation and penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, ruling in favor of the appellants. The case involved allegations of suppression of facts by manufacturers of industrial boilers. The Tribunal found that all necessary details were disclosed through invoices and other submissions, indicating no intention to evade duty. As the department had prior knowledge of the relevant information since 1996 and the subsequent investigation did not uncover new details, the plea that demands were time-barred due to suppression of facts was accepted. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing no basis for invoking a larger period for duty recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts, and whether the duty demand and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The records showed that the material facts regarding free supply of materials had already been disclosed in the invoices and were available to the department in 1996. The Range Superintendent had examined the documents, and the later notice of 1998 was not founded on any fresh facts unearthed in investigation. In these circumstances, the non-inclusion of the value of free supplies could not be treated as suppression with intent to evade duty, and the extended period was not available.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not justified, and the demand as well as the penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---