2025 (4) TMI 1319 - AT - Central Excise

Classification based on withdrawn CBEC circular cannot invoke extended limitation without proving fraud or suppression

AAK India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known was Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Raigad

CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant's classification of RBD Palm Stearin and HPS under Chapter 15 was based on CBEC Circular 81/2002-Customs, which was ... Excisability - classification of Refined Bleached Deodorized Palm Stearin (RBD) and Hydrogenated Palm Stearin (HPS) - to be classified under Subheading Nos. 1511 9090 and 1516 2099 respectively or under Sub-heading Nos. 3823 1112 and 3823 1190 respectively? - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The CBEC in the Circular No. 81/2002-Customs dated 03.12.2002 has classified Palm Stearin under Chapter heading 15.11, when the same is obtained through fractionation process and classified the same under Chapter heading 38.23, when obtained through the Hydrolytic splitting process. Since, the by-products were obtained by the appellants through the fractionation process, they had claimed the classification of the goods under Chapter 15, which is in consonance with the circular dated 03.12.2002. With regard to the dispute in classification of the subject goods, this Tribunal, in the case of Gokul Enterprises [2008 (11) TMI 135 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and Jocil Ltd. [2009 (2) TMI 306 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has taken the view that the product should appropriately be classifiable under Chapter 15. However, the classification dispute in the case of Jocil Ltd. was differed with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jocil Ltd., by holding that the Palm Stearin to be classifiable under Chapter 38. Since, the classification issue was finally resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jocil Ltd., the appellants had started paying the Central Excise duty, suo moto, w.e.f. April 2011. The period in dispute, involved in the present appeal is from November 2009 to March 2011. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued by the department to the appellants on 23.03.2014, seeking for confirmation of the duty demand. The provisions for recovery of non-levied, non-paid, short levied or short paid duties are contained in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - On reading of the above quoted statutory provisions, it transpires that any amount, if lawfully required to be recovered, then the same can be given effect to, by way of issuance of show cause notice within the normal period of one year from the relevant date. In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact on record that the CBEC in the Circular dated 03.12.2002 had classified the disputed goods under heading 15.11, which was subsequently withdrawn vide Circular No. 31/2011-Customs dated 26.07.2011, pursuant to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, delivered in the case of Jocil Ltd. - there was proper documentation in support of generation of such by-products in the manufacturing process and removal of the same from the factory premises. Thus, under such circumstances, the extended period of the limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellants inasmuch as there is no element of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud etc., on the part of the appellants, with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The department had not specifically brought out any evidence to show that non-payment of Central Excise duty by the appellants was due to the reason of any fraudulent activities, with intent to defraud the Government Revenue. The issue arising out the present dispute with regard to initiation of the show cause proceedings by invoking the extended period of limitation, was dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cargill India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. [2024 (9) TMI 1729 - CESTAT MUMBAI], [2024 (9) TMI 1728 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD],wherein the Tribunal has allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee, by holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the duty demands. Conclusion - i) Classification disputes, when bona fide and supported by official circulars and Tribunal decisions, negate intent to evade duty. ii) Extended limitation under Section 11A(1) proviso applies only where there is evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade duty. Show cause notices issued beyond one year without such evidence are barred by limitation. There are no merits in the impugned order, insofar as it has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demands by invoking the extended period of limitation - appeal allowed. The core legal questions considered in the judgment include:1. Whether the by-products-Refined Bleached Deodorized Palm Stearin (RBD) and Hydrogenated Palm Stearin (HPS)-are excisable goods liable to Central Excise Duty on removal from the factory premises.2. The correct classification of these by-products under the Central Excise Tariff Act, specifically whether they fall under Chapter 15 or Chapter 38.3. Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can be invoked by the department for recovery of duty on these by-products for the disputed period.4. Whether there was any suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade payment of duty by the appellants that would justify invoking the extended limitation period.Issue 1: Classification and Excise Liability of By-ProductsThe appellants contended that the by-products RBD and HPS fall under sub-heading Nos. 1511 9090 and 1516 2099 respectively, which were exempt from Central Excise Duty under Notification No. 3/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006. They relied on CBEC Circular No. 81/2002-Cus dated 03.12.2002, which classified Palm Stearin under Chapter 15 when obtained by fractionation, the process used by them. The appellants also cited Tribunal decisions in Gokul Enterprises and Jocil Ltd. supporting classification under Chapter 15.The Revenue disputed this, asserting classification under sub-heading Nos. 3823 1112 and 3823 1190 (Chapter 38), which attract excise duty. The department relied on the Supreme Court decision in Jocil Ltd., which held the product to be classifiable under Chapter 38, overturning the Tribunal's earlier view.The Court noted the classification dispute was conclusively resolved by the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Revenue, and the appellants had accordingly commenced payment of duty from April 2011 onwards.Issue 2: Applicability of Extended Limitation Period under Section 11AThe period in dispute was November 2009 to March 2011, and the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 23.03.2014, beyond the normal one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The proviso to Section 11A(1) permits extending the limitation to five years only if non-payment of duty was due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of the Act with intent to evade duty.The appellants argued that since they had acted in good faith relying on the classification under Chapter 15 (supported by CBEC Circular and Tribunal decisions), there was no suppression or intent to evade duty. They contended that the extended limitation period could not be invoked.The Revenue maintained the demand and contended that the extended period was applicable.Issue 3: Evidence of Fraud or SuppressionThe Court examined the factual matrix and found that the appellants had issued Central Excise invoices for the by-products removed, maintaining proper documentation. The CBEC Circular of 2002 had classified the goods under Chapter 15, which was only withdrawn after the Supreme Court's decision in 2010, indicating genuine confusion over classification during the relevant period.The department failed to produce any evidence demonstrating fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement by the appellants. The Court emphasized that mere non-payment of duty, without evidence of intent to evade, cannot justify invoking the extended limitation period.Issue 4: Precedential Treatment of Similar IssuesThe Court referred to coordinate Bench decisions in Cargill India, where similar facts and classification disputes led to the conclusion that the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The Tribunal had held that the appellants' bonafides could not be doubted given the CBEC Circular and the prevailing classification confusion.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that:The classification dispute was resolved by the Supreme Court in favor of Revenue, and the appellants had complied thereafter.During the disputed period, the appellants acted based on the prevailing CBEC Circular and Tribunal decisions, evidencing bona fide belief in classification under Chapter 15.There was no evidence of fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement to justify invoking the extended limitation period.The show cause notice issued beyond the one-year period was therefore barred by limitation.Accordingly, the impugned order confirming the duty demand on the basis of extended limitation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants on limitation grounds.Significant HoldingsThe Court's key legal reasoning included the following verbatim extract from the Cargill India decision, which was relied upon:'4. We have considered the rival submissions. The issue involves demand of Central Excise duty on PS cleared by the appellant during the period June 2009 to July 2010. A show cause notice has been issued on 28.06.2014 demanding duty on PS by classifying the same under heading 3823. It is not in dispute that during the period June 2009 to July 2010, the CBIC had issued Circular No. 81/2002-Cus dated 03.12.2002 wherein it was clearly held that PS would be classifiable under chapter 15 and not under Chapter 38. The said Circular was withdrawn only after the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jocil (supra) vide Circular No. 31/2011- Cus dated 26.07.2011. In these facts and circumstances, it is apparent that even CBIC at the material time held a view that the goods are classifiable under Chapter 15 and not under Chapter 38 therefore. The bonafides of the appellant, therefore, cannot be doubted. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in invocation of extended period of limitation to demand Central Excise duty, interest and to impose penalty under Section 11C. The Show Cause Notice is therefore, set aside on account of limitation. The appeal is allowed.'The core principles established are:Classification disputes, when bona fide and supported by official circulars and Tribunal decisions, negate intent to evade duty.Extended limitation under Section 11A(1) proviso applies only where there is evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade duty.Proper documentation and issuance of invoices for by-products during the disputed period support the appellants' bona fide claim.Show cause notices issued beyond one year without such evidence are barred by limitation.The final determination was that the extended limitation period could not be invoked, the demand for duty on the by-products for the disputed period was barred by limitation, and the impugned order confirming such demand was set aside. The appeal was allowed accordingly.