Resin clearance exempted from central excise duty demand due to delayed adjudication violating Section 11A(11) timeline

M/s. The Divisional Forest Officer Versus Commissioner of C.G. ST. - Dehradun

M/s. The Divisional Forest Officer Versus Commissioner of C.G. ST. - Dehradun - TMI Issues:
- Appellant's failure to pay central excise duty on resin clearance
- Alleged evasion of central excise duty by retaining collected amount
- Dispute over duty liability due to legal challenges and subsequent releases of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs)
- Appellant's contention of no intention to evade duty and regular discharge of duty liability
- Department's argument supporting the order under challenge

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appellant's failure to pay central excise duty on resin clearance
The appellant, engaged in resin manufacturing, faced allegations of not paying central excise duty on resin clearance, despite collecting the duty amount from customers in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs). The department claimed the duty evasion based on the retention of collected amounts, leading to the issuance of show cause notices and subsequent demand orders.

Issue 2: Alleged evasion of central excise duty by retaining collected amount
The department contended that the appellant's retention of excise duty collected from customers constituted evasion, resulting in proposed recovery of duty with interest and penalties. The Order-in-Original confirmed these demands, prompting the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the sustainability of the demand.

Issue 3: Dispute over duty liability due to legal challenges and subsequent releases of FDRs
Legal complexities arose due to ongoing litigations regarding excise duty liability on resin clearance. The appellant cited various legal proceedings, including stays and judgments, to support their claim that duty collection was either stayed, released, or deemed arbitrary and illegal during specific periods. This legal backdrop formed a crucial aspect of the dispute.

Issue 4: Appellant's contention of no intention to evade duty and regular discharge of duty liability
The appellant argued that post-legal clarity on duty liability, they consistently discharged duty obligations. They maintained that for the disputed periods, either the demand was unsustainable due to legal stays or the duty amount was released post the legal decisions, indicating no intentional evasion on their part.

Issue 5: Department's argument supporting the order under challenge
The Departmental Representative defended the order, emphasizing the appellant's acknowledgment of duty liability in legal proceedings. They highlighted the statutory nature of excise duty payment and relied on specific findings to counter the appellant's claims of unsustainable demands. The department sought dismissal of the appeals based on these grounds.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments, legal precedents, and factual circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the order under challenge, allowing the appeals. The decision was based on various grounds, including the legal complexities, delayed adjudication, and the absence of duty collection from buyers during disputed periods. The judgment reflected a detailed analysis of the legal and factual aspects, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.