TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demand for extended period. 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of Zirconium Washed Dried Frit (in short "ZDF") and Zirconium Sulfate falling under Chapter sub-heading 2825 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent are manufacturing ZDF on job work on behalf of Hyderabad Regional Purchase Unit (in short "HRPU"), Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad. The activity of job work done by the respondent resulted into emergence of a new product which was liable to central excise duty under the Act. 2.2 During the course of audit of the records of the respondent, it was observed that during the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10, while computing the trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings initiated against the respondent in the show cause notice by holding that in the absence of any evidence that the respondent were aware that the value of the materials supplied free of cost was required to the goods manufactured by them, it is not possible to saddle the respondent with the demand beyond the normal period of limitation. Aggrieved by the said findings of learned Adjudicating Authority, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned Authorized Representative for the appellant-Revenue. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, but the respondent have already filed written submissions on 04.12.2023 along with various documents and judgments relied upon by them. Hence, we proceed to decide the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mic Energy, Hyderabad told the respondent that they have contacted the local Central Excise which have allowed them this calculation without the cost of FIM (Free Issue Material). The request of the respondent was turned down by the Department of Atomic Energy, not on merit, but on technical ground. 4.4 The learned Authorized Representative further relies on the following judgments in order to justify the invocation of extended period of limitation and the suppression of material fact by the respondent from the department: • Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. CCE, Madras - 1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC) • Mallur Siddeswara Spinning Mills P Ltd vs. CCE, Coimbatore - 2004 (166) ELT 154 (SC) • Aircell Digilink India L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower Corporation managed by Government of India for generation of power. It has further been submitted by the respondent that ZDF is an intermediate product produced by the respondent from the Zircon supplied by Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad for its specific use to manufacture Zirconium Alloy Tubes. Furthermore, it may be clarified that these are nuclear materials and thus, are not capable of being bought or sold in the market. The respondent have also submitted that if Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad does not place orders on the respondent's unit, it remains closed during that period for want of work, therefore, it is totally dependent on Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad for business. Further, it is stated in the submissions that MSME....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er with intent to evade payment of duty as provided in the proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, for invoking the extended period of limitation of five years are totally absent in the present case. Further, the respondent have stated that the show cause notice was issued on the basis of information/details supplied by the respondent based on their records, therefore, the allegation of wilful suppression of facts is totally incorrect and legally unsustainable and the longer period of limitation is not applicable in the present case. In this regard, the respondent have relied on the following decisions: a) P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd vs. CCE - 2010 (249) ELT 232 (Tribunal) b) Petro Carbon Industries vs. CCE - 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the invocation of extended period of limitation is totally unwarranted in the present case because the Revenue has not been able to establish any of the ingredients mentioned in Section 11A(1) of the Act for invoking the extended period of limitation. Further, we find that the respondent had acted bona fidely as per the clauses of the purchase orders received by them from the Regional Director, HRPU, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad, a unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India and there was no wilful act or omission of any kind whatsoever on their part leading to mens rea for invoking the penal provisions. Further, we find that the show cause notice itself was issued on the basis of information supplied by the respondent....