TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in duty demand appeal, finding it time-barred.</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in an appeal against the Commissioner's order following a remand order by the Tribunal. The impugned order ... Demand - Limitation - SSI Exemption Issues Involved:Appeal against order passed by Commissioner after Tribunal's remand order directing fresh findings on all issues including limitation. Demand of duty on M/s. RWPL for clubbing clearances with other units and penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Challenge to duty demand by appellants on grounds of clubbing clearances and time-bar.Analysis:In a second round of litigation, the appeals were directed against the Commissioner's order following the Tribunal's remand order. The impugned order was related to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 28-4-1997, where duty demand was raised on M/s. RWPL for the period 1992-93 to 95-96 by clubbing their clearances with other units. A penalty was also proposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was invoked, alleging wilful suppression of material facts by the units.The impugned order confirmed a demand of duty against M/s. RWPL and imposed a penalty. The appellants contested the duty demand by challenging the clubbing of clearances and pleading time-bar. During the hearing, the challenge against clubbing was not pressed, focusing instead on the limitation issue. The appellants argued that the department was estopped from alleging suppression as they had filed approved classification lists declaring no proprietary interest in other factories, supported by relevant case laws.The main contention revolved around the limitation issue. The appellants argued that non-disclosure of non-payment of job charges did not constitute suppression as it was not a legal requirement to disclose such information. They relied on precedents and a Supreme Court decision to support their stance. On the other hand, the department argued that implicit suppression existed due to non-disclosure of inter-relationships between the units, citing relevant case laws to justify the applicability of the extended period of limitation.After considering all submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellants had conceded the Commissioner's findings on merits, leaving the limitation challenge as the only issue. The Tribunal analyzed the classification lists filed by the units, noting declarations of no proprietary interest in other factories. It was concluded that the allegation of suppression regarding clubbing of clearances could not be sustained, supported by case laws cited by the appellants. The Tribunal distinguished the cases cited by the department and held in favor of the appellants, vacating the duty demand as time-barred and setting aside the penalty on M/s. RWPL.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by vacating the duty demand and penalty, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the limitation issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
