TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and clearance of excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading 84 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on input/input services and capital goods which are used in or in relation to the clearance of final goods. During the scrutiny of the records by the department, it was observed that the appellants have cleared battery operated stackers (3 Nos.), hydraulic hand pallet trucks (10 Nos.) and hydraulic pallet truck (21 Nos.). The aggregate value of clearance of which is Rs. 19,49,000/- under various invoices without payment of duty by indicating deemed export supply against EPCG licence No. 0830000898 dated 25.7.2005. On these allegations, a show-cause notice was issued propos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings under the show-cause notice is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the show-cause notice merely alleges that the appellant intended to evade payment of duty without any specific averment of facts suppressed, however, the burden to prove that there has been an intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty has not been discharged by the Revenue. He also submitted that it is incumbent upon the department to verify the correctness of the assessment made by the appellant within the stipulated time period for scrutiny of returns as mandated by the Departmental Circulars, Return Scrutiny Manual as well as the Central Excise Manual as all these are binding on the departmental auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(216) ELT 177 (SC) ix. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur: 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) x. Ajay Poly Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011 (273) ELT 85 (Tri.-Del.) xi. CCE, Kolkata vs. ITC Ltd.: 2013 (291) ELT 377 (Tri.-Kolkata) xii. CCE, Noida vs. Accurate Chemical Industries : 2014 (310) ELT 441 (All.) xiii. Accurate Chemical Industries vs. CCE, Noida: 2014 (300) ELT 451 (Tri.-Del.) xiv. Jammu & Kashmi Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Jallandhar: 2014 (314) ELT 334 (Tri.-Del.) xv. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur: 2016 (332) ELT 356 (Tri.-Del.) xvi. CCE, Mumbai-III vs. Essel Propack Ltd.: 2015 (323) ELT 248 (SC) xvii. CCE, Jalandhar vs. Royal Enterprises: 2016 (337) ELT 482 (SC)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Macleods Pharmaceuticals vs. CCE: 2013 (296) ELT 379, it was held by the Tribunal that when ER-1 returns are filed with the lower authorities showing the quantity cleared without payment of duty and when ER-1 returns are accepted, there cannot be any suppression and the entire demand is hit by limitation. Further, I also find in the various circulars placed on record that it is the duty of the Central Excise officers to check the correctness of the duty assessed in respect of all the returns received with the assistance of the inspectors posted in the Range Office and this scrutiny of the returns has to be completed by the Range Officer within three months of their receipt. Further, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7.2 From the above Circulars of the C.B.E. & C. regarding scrutiny of ER-1 returns, it is clear that the returns filed by an assessee are required to be subjected to detailed scrutiny in course of which the concerned officer can call for the documents from the assessee wherever necessary for scrutiny. Therefore in this case, if the concerned Range officer/Assistant/Deputy Commissioner or concerned Additional Commissioner had checked the returns, the short payment would have been immediately detected as, as observed by the Commissioner in para 4.5 of the impugned order, even the registration certificate of the appellant mentioned them as a unit of Accurate Transformers Ltd., and in all the documents of the appellant, the transfer of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll information with intent to evade the payment of duty and mere omission to give certain information is not suppression of fact unless it is deliberate with intention to evade the payment of duty. The above condition for invoking extended period prescribed in these judgments is not satisfied in this case." 6.1 Similarly, in the case of Jammu and Kashmir Cement Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2014 (314) ELT 334, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has held that if there is a lack of due diligence on the part of the departmental authorities then extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In this case also, the Division Bench has discussed about the Board Circular emphasizing the duties of the Range Officer to scrutinize the returns filed by....