2026 (3) TMI 1719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ants are in appeals against a common impugned order wherein the demand of duty has been confirmed along with interest and an equivalent amount of penalty has also been imposed on the appellants. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the production of excisable goods, namely, coal. It was alleged that they have contravened the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as they have short paid Central Excise duty under "duty amount" by way of undervaluation of their finished goods and by suppressing the actual transaction value and also by not including the element of "Royalty" and "Stowing Excise Duty" charges collected from their customers into the assessable value of coal cleared during th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the impugned Order-in-Original except in Appeal No E/75650 of 2020, have been issued after the expiry of the normal period of limitation. The normal period of limitation was one year from the relevant date at the time when all the eleven SCN's were issued. The date of issuance of SCN and the period involved is tabulated herein below: Cause List Sl. No Excise Appeal No Area/Unit SCN date Period in dispute 31 E/75646/2020 Hazaribagh 18.03.2016 Mar'11 to Feb'13 32 E/75647/2020 N K 24.03.2014 -DO- 33 E/75648/2020 Barka Sayal 16.03.2016 -DO- 34 E/75649/2020 Bokaro and Kargali 04.02.2016 -DO- 35 E/75650/2020 Kuju 10.03.2014 -DO- 36 E/75651/2020 P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v Commr. Of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Rourkela, Excise Appeal No. 75808 of 2016, Final Order No. 75699/2025 dated 11.03.2025 and in the case of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited v Commr. Of Central Excise, Bolpur, Excise Appeal No. 75694 of 2015, Final Order No.75656-75666/2025, both dated 11.03.2025. 6.2 On merit of the case with respect to "Royalty", this Tribunal, on the issue of whether payment of royalty is in the nature of a "tax" or not has, after taking note of the judgment of the Constitutional Nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority vs. Steel Authority of India (2024) 21 Centax 378 (SC), pronounced on 25.07.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held that extended period of limitation could not have been invoked and penalty under Section 11AC could not have been imposed. Therefore, we hold that except for Appeal No E/75650/2020, where the demand falls outside the normal period of limitation be set aside with consequential relief of interest and penalty to the appellant-assessee. 6.5 In respect of one case being Appeal No E/75650/2020, the Showcause notice dated 10.03.2024, received on even date, was issued for the period March 2011 to February 2013. Thus, the period falling within the normal period of limitation is the period for February 2013. The differential demand of central excise duty on royalty and SED for the month of February 2013 is Rs.39,42,386/-. The differential du....