Limitation and suppression in excise duty on mould repair charges: extended period failed without deliberate intent to evade duty.

Duty was examined on mould repair and modification charges recovered from customers, and the tribunal found no basis to disturb the levy on merits. The demand was nevertheless held time-barred because there was no deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade duty; the non-inclusion of future repair costs and the department's own audit failure did not establish the extended period condition. As a result, the proviso to Section 11AC(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable, and the demand was set aside on limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty was payable on mould repair and modification charges recovered from customers; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Issue (i): Whether duty was payable on mould repair and modification charges recovered from customers.

Analysis: The demand was founded on charges recovered towards repair and modification of moulds supplied by customers. On the merits of levy, the tribunal found no basis to interfere with the demand.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The non-inclusion of future repair costs, coupled with the absence of a finding of deliberate suppression and the departmental audit having also missed the issue earlier, negatived the allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty. The plea of limitation was therefore upheld, and the proviso to Section 11AC(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the limitation ground and the duty demand was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere omission to include future repair costs, without deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, does not justify invocation of the extended period or the penal consequence linked to Section 11AC(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---