Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Aurangabad vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd on 16 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO: E/3596/2004
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: PS(320)/101/2004 dated 30/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad.]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
:
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
:
Yes
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
:
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
:
Yes
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Aurangabad
Appellant
Vs
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Navneet, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the appellant Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 16/04/2014 Date of decision: 16/04/2014 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan:
Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No: PS(320)/101/2004 dated 30/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad.
2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondent herein i.e., Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ld., on the ground of time-bar by holding that in the price declarations filed at the relevant time under Rule 173C of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, the appellant had clearly declared that they are collecting transportation charges which is claimed as a deduction and the purchase orders for the execution of the work-contract were also enclosed. Therefore, there is no suppression on the part of the respondent so as to invoke the extended period of time for confirmation of demand. Aggrieved of the same the Revenue is before us.
3. In their appeal memorandum, it has been urged that merely because declarations under Rule 173C were filed with the department and RT-12 returns were also submitted, it does not mean that assessee had not suppressed that the goods were delivered a the site where the work was undertaken. The transportation document would show that the consignee as self which shows that there is no delivery at the factory-gate and the goods have been delivered at the site where the pipe is laid. Therefore, the dropping of the demand by the lower appellate authority on account of time-bar is incorrect in law.
3.1. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates these grounds urged in the appeal memorandum.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that they had submitted all the relevant documents before the jurisdictional authorities that they would claim deduction towards freight. Therefore, there is no suppression on the part of the appellant so as to invoke extended period of time. In the present case, for the period October 1996 to June 2000, the show cause notice has been issued only on 02/11/2001 and, therefore, the demands were clearly time-barred.
5. When the case came up on 27/02/2014, we had directed the Revenue to submit copies of the price declarations filed by the appellant during the relevant period and the same have been submitted before us. On a perusal of these price declarations, it is seen that the respondent had enclosed the work-order and also the purchase orders for the supply of pipes in respect of work-contract undertaken by them. If these documents were available with the Revenue and deduction towards freight was claimed on the basis of these documents, it cannot be said that the respondent suppressed any fact. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on a decision of this Tribunal in respondents own case reported in 2004 (163) ELT 273 wherein it was held that, if the place of removal is indicated in the RT-12 returns and excise invoices, then non-mention of place of removal in declaration filed under Rule 173C would not amount to suppression. Therefore, extended period of time could not be invoked in such circumstances. In the present case, we find that the respondent filed the declarations under Rule 173C along with all the relevant documents. In these circumstances, there is no scope for invoking extended period of time, and therefore, the lower appellate authority has correctly held the demand as time-barred.
6. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) */as 3