2025 (1) TMI 1371 - AT - Central Excise

Extended limitation period cannot be invoked for differential duty based on discrepancies between returns and balance sheet figures

M/s. Jeppiaar Furnace and Steels P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate

The CESTAT Chennai held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for demanding differential duty based on discrepancies between ER-1 ... Demand of differential duty - difference in sales figures reflected in the assessee’s ER – 1 Returns filed and the sales figures reported in their Balance Sheet - invocation of extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- From the documents placed on record, in the reply to the SCN, it is revealed that during the visit of the officers of DGCEI in 2010 and subsequent resumption of records from JFSPL and its suppliers of raw materials, the Show Cause Notice dated 16.04.2014 relating to the period June 2009 to December 2010 came to be issued. It is also asserted that the said agency had looked into the ER – 1 Returns, Books of Account including balance sheet, etc. and, at no point of time did they raise any query as regards the alleged removal of TMT bars or billets without payment of duty. From the OIO, it is found that the Authority has tried to negate the above contention on the ground that the DGCEI’s case was based on specific intelligence to the effect of the assessee taking credit without actual receipt of material as against which, the present case was one of clandestine removal; and therefore, the extended time limit has been correctly invoked. It is clear that the time limit would start ticking when the Revenue came to know about the manufacturing activity of the appellant and that was the time when the show cause notice should have been issued and the Revenue having failed to do so, they cannot therefore allege suppression on the part of the appellant and invoke the extended time limit. Hence, the ratio of the said order is squarely applicable here also, in the case on hand, since from the date of visit/verification of records by DGCI in 2010 and the date of SCN, more than three years have lapsed. Hence, the same clearly is hit by the time limitation. Conclusion - The extended period for demanding duty is only applicable when there is clear evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful suppression of facts. Mere discrepancies in records, especially when previously examined by authorities, do not justify invoking the extended period. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered was whether the demand for differential duty, as confirmed in the impugned order, is sustainable, particularly in light of the invocation of the extended time limit under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The core questions involved the applicability of the extended period for issuing the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and whether the alleged suppression of facts by the assessee justified such invocation.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISLegal Framework and Precedents:The legal framework involved sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly section 11A(4), which allows for an extended time limit for issuing a demand notice if there is evidence of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of any provisions with the intent to evade duty. The relevant precedents included the Supreme Court's decision in CCE Vs M/s. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, which established that something more than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer is required to invoke the extended period.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal focused on whether the Revenue's invocation of the extended time limit was justified. It noted that the Revenue's case was based on an alleged discrepancy in sales figures between the assessee's ER-1 Returns and their Balance Sheet. The Tribunal emphasized that for the extended period to be applicable, there must be evidence of suppression or willful misstatement, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue.Key Evidence and Findings:The evidence centered on the difference in sales figures and the Revenue's assumption of clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. The Tribunal found that the DGCEI had previously examined the assessee's records, including ER-1 Returns and balance sheets, without raising any concerns about the alleged duty evasion. This prior knowledge by the authorities was pivotal in the Tribunal's assessment.Application of Law to Facts:The Tribunal applied the legal principles from the Chemphar Drugs case, determining that the Revenue failed to prove any positive act of suppression or willful misstatement by the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that the extended period could not be invoked merely based on the discrepancy in records, especially when the authorities were already aware of the assessee's activities.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The Tribunal considered the assessee's argument that the discrepancy was due to an exempted supply of TMT bars, which was not reflected in the ER-1 Returns. The Revenue's argument that the extended period was applicable due to the alleged clandestine removal was not supported by sufficient evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation plausible and noted the lack of any queries from the DGCEI during their prior examination of records.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the extended period for issuing the SCN was not justifiable in this case. The prior knowledge of the authorities about the assessee's manufacturing activities negated any claim of suppression or willful misstatement. The Tribunal found the demand unsustainable due to the time-barred nature of the SCN.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSVerbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling: 'Something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability, before the period of six months.'Core Principles Established:The decision reaffirmed the principle that the extended period for demanding duty is only applicable when there is clear evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful suppression of facts. Mere discrepancies in records, especially when previously examined by authorities, do not justify invoking the extended period.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. It determined that the SCN was issued beyond the permissible time frame, as the Revenue failed to prove any deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty by the assessee.