TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the confirmation of demand of Central excise duty along with interest and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [Act 1994]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Portland cement under two categories, namely, Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) for which the major raw material used was clinker. The appellant manufactured clinker using rotary kiln. The cement manufactured in the factory of the appellant was cleared on payment of duty at concessional rate in terms of Sl. No.19 of Notification No.06/2002-CE dated 1.03.2022. 3. As per Sl.No.19 of Notification 6/2002, the conditions prescribed for availment of concessional rate of du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ank allegation that the appellant has suppressed material fact of producing cement in excess of 900 tonnes per day, have not satisfied as to how the ingredients of suppression of facts can be raised. Similarly, the Adjudicating Authority has also merely noted the submissions of the appellant challenging the invocation of the extended period of limitation, however, has failed to give any findings in that regard. He submitted that the appellant had no intention to act dishonest and was under the bonafide belief that they are entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the notification. The issue being one of interpretation, the extended period of limitation is not invocable and consequently, no penalty can be imposed. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¢ Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Rohtak, Haryana- Final Order No. 50031/2024 dated 11.01.2024 (CESTAT New Delhi) 7. The period under dispute is from April 2002 to August 2003, and show cause notice has been issued on 23.12.2004, which is beyond the normal period of one year. It is the settled principle of law that burden to prove the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation that the assessee had an intention to act dishonestly, wilful misrepresentation and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, is on the Revenue. On the principle that show cause notice must contain an averment pointing to the ingredients of the proviso to Section 11A(1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded to observe that there was wilful action of withholding of vital information apparently for evasion of excise duty due on this waste/by-product but counsel for the assessee contended that in the absence of any such allegation in the show cause notice the assessee was not put to notice regarding the specific allegation under the proviso to that sub-section. The mere non-declaration of the waste/by-product in their classification list cannot establish any wilful withholding of vital information for the purpose of evasion of excise duty due on the said product. There could be, counsel contended, bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that the said waste or by-product did not attract excise duty and hence it may not have been included ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment of excise duty." 8. Following the decision in HMM Ltd, the Apex Court in Raj Bahadur Narain(supra) once again considered that the show cause notice does not refer to any act or omissions and as the default enumerated in the proviso are more than one, it is necessary that the authorities are required to specifically state which of the default the assessee is charged with. The party to whom show cause notice is issued must be made aware that the allegation against him is of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of fact. Reiterating the same principle in Kaur & Singh(supra) that show cause notice issued beyond six months without alleging fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice does not even mention about the proviso to Section and, therefore, there is no discussion or any justification for invoking the said provision. To quote, show cause notice says:- "(i)Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.2,97,00,000/- less paid on clearances of cement should not be recovered from them under Section 11A under Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) A penalty equal to short paid amount of duty should not be imposed upon them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as they have suppressed the material fact of having higher capacity of production from the Department." 11. Similarly, on perusing the impugned order, we find the Adjudicating Authority has also failed to discuss the basic ingredients ....