TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uling adjudication in respect of the impugned SCNs. The primary ground raised is the bar of limitation, which is stated to be in contravention of the time set out under Section 11A (11) of the Act. 3. The following are the admitted facts that flow from the rival submissions advanced. SCNs were initially issued on different dates, being 11.02.1999 (WP.Nos.17202 and 17201 of 2020), 27.11.2000 (WP.No.17208 of 2020), 05.11.2001 (WP.No.17210 of 2022), 23.06.1999 (WP.No.17205 of 2020) and 15.02.1999 (WP.No.17204 of 2020). 4. The petitioner responded to the SCNs on various dates setting forth its objections to the proposals contained therein. Personal hearing notices were issued, very proximate to the date of SCNs, and the exchange of information continued for a brief period. 5. As regards show cause notice assailed in WP.No.17204 of 2020 dated 15.02.1999, there was investigation by the audit wing of the Central Excise Department that was of the view that the Assessing Officer ought to have enhanced the proposal contained in the SCN and that the demand of Rs.21.7 lakhs (approx) that was proposed, fell short of the appropriate demand that ought to have been Rs.28.1 lakhs (approx) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanks supplied to India Govt Mint -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **** is stated that credit in respect of inputs contained in ***** products viz., 51 MTs lying in RG-1 stock as on 1998 has not been worked out and reversed. In this connection, it is stated that Salem Steel Plant has **** a sum of Rs. 26,41,845/- towards excise duty at 15% **** on the CRSS Strips for a quantity of 235.900 MTs lying ***** stock in the Blanking Line on the beginning of 2.6.1998. The ***** -up for 235.900 MTs is given below: Finished Blanks : 51 MTs WIP : 133 MTs Total : 184 MTs Entity of CRSS Strips required for 184 MTs is 235.900 MTs. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the assessee has not ***** credit for 51 MTs of finished products lying in RG-1 ***** as on 2.6.1998. **** is stated by audit that the assessee has paid 8% of the value **** exempted product at the time of clearance. This is not ****. The assessee proposed to pay 8% vide their letter ro.FA-****** dated 29.6.1998 for which a communication was sent to SSP **** Range vide letter OC No.494/98 dated 29.7.1998 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay with certainty that the finished products arising out of a particular slab would be sold to the Power Driven Pump Manufacturers. Same is the position when the Hot Rolled Coils are transferred to CRM for further processing as CRSS Coils. Only after receipt of orders from the Power Driven Pump Manufacturers, the CRSS Sheets are identified from a large number of dutiable CRSS Sheets and a part quantity is removed and cleared for the above category of Power Driven Pump Manufacturers at NIL rate of duty. In the CRM, almost all CRSS products are sold on payment of duty other than those supplied to the above category of manufacturers/100% EOUs and for Export. Therefore, it is clear that both dutiable and exempted category of products are manufactured from a common input viz., Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Coils. As the exemption for captive consumption (notification No.67/95-**** dated 16.3.1995) is not available for manufacture of exempted final products supplied to the above category of pump manufacturers. SSP was asked to pay excise duty on the input Hot Rolled Stainless Steel coils at the rate of 15%. They simultaneously availed MODVAT Credit to the extent of 95% of such duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 8% on the price of the final products as demanded by the audit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (i) Assessable value for 1 M.T. of : Rs. 74,000/- HRSS materials. (ii) Excise Duty at 15% on Rs. 74,000/- : Rs. 11,100/- (iii) Assessable Value for 1 MT, of : Rs. 89,000/- CRSS supplied to Power Driven Pump Manufacturers. (iv) Reversal of Credit at 8% on (iii) above: Rs. 7,120/- Total liability on SSP on account of notification : Rs. 18,220/- no. 5/98CE dated 2.6.1998, as per the interpretation given by audit. The rationale behind the reversal of MODVAT Credit as envisaged under Rule 57CC is explained in Trade Notice No.73/96 ***** dated 25.7.1996. A copy of the relevant extract is enclosed. In page 4 of the Trade Notice it is mentioned that "when the manufacturer clears the fully exempted final product, he is required to reverse the credit taken on the inputs contained in the exempted final product. This procedure is quite cumbersome and many a time, in the absence of any input-output correlation, it is difficult to determine whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../90-CX-3 dated 06.09.1990 followed by Circular No.162/73/95-CX dated 14.12.1995. The Circulars provide for power to transfer pending cases to call books in the following situations: CIRCULAR NO 162/73/95-CX Dated: December 14, 1995 ...................... 2. The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi has requested for inclusion of certain categories of cases for (i) Cases in which the department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority. (ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/High Court/CEGAT, etc. (iii) Cases where audit objections are contested. (iv) Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be keptpending and to be entered into the call book. 16. Clause (iii) of the above Circular relates to the transfer of cases where audit objections are contested by the Assessing Authority, as in the present case, where objections have been raised by the Assessing Authorities concerned, to the objections raised by audit. It is the case of the revenue that since the present cases falls under category (iv) above, the transfer of the SCNs to the call book is justified. 17. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall be completed within six months from date of notice, where it was possible to do so. The present case falls under sub-section 1 of Section 11A, and thus, the applicable time limit would be, as far as possible, six months from date of notice. Even if one were to accede to the position that the statutory period of six months was elastic and admitted of some flexibility, the excess of time, over and above six months must be justifiable and reasonable. 23. As to whether the phrase under sub-section (11) being 'where it is possible to do so' would stand justified by the sequence of events that have been noted in the matter as above, my categoric conclusion is that it does not. There are admittedly, absolutely no circumstances warranting or justifying the pendency of the SCNs on the call book for 21 long years. 24. I draw support in this regard from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Co-Op. Milk P. Union Ltd. [2007 (217) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.)] and Government of India Vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals [1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 (S.C.)] 25. The ratio of the aforementioned judgements have been applied by various High Courts t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court to reverse the order of the Tribunal and restore the matter to its file for adjudication on merits. The facts are seen to be distinguishable from those in the present case, and thus, do not advance the case of the revenue. 29. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, [(2017) 352 ELT 455], considered the case of delay ranging up to 15 years in that case and had set aside all SCNs as being unreasonably and unduly belated. The Bench has also expressed the view that the concept of the call book, created by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and transfer of pending cases to the call book, is contrary to the statutory mandate. Such transfer provides for an extrastatutory period of limitation, impermissible and contrary to law. 30. The Union of India has carried the matter in SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and notice has been issued, limited to the question of whether Circular No. 162/73/95-CX dated 14.12.1995, which provides for transfer of cases to the call book is in conformity with the provisions of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the relevant Rules. Significantly, the Hon'ble Supre....