Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Pranav Vikas (India) Ltd. vs Cce on 6 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(83)ECC786, 2002(148)ELT963(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are manufacturer of aluminium skived tubes. They sold those tubes to various manufacturers engaged in the manufacture of car air-conditioners, oil coolers, radiators, water coolers, chillers, refrigerators etc. They claimed concessional rate of duty for the tubes under Serial No. 11 of Notification No. 56/95-CE. Later on, it revealed that they were not entitled to the benefit of this Notification and show cause notice was served on them vide which differential duty for the period 1.4.1995 to 30.4.1996 was demanded and extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11-A of the Act was invoked. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty on the appellants after getting their reply to the show cause notice wherein they reiterated their stand that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 56/95-CE and further averred that the demand was time barred. The order of the adjudicating authority dated 18.4.2001 had been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has contested the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) only on the question of limitation. On merits, the learned counsel has fairly conceded that the appellants have no case for claiming the concessional rate of duty on the goods under Serial No. 11 of the Notification No. 56/95-CE in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Pranav Vikas (India) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi 2001 (47) RLT654 (CEGAT-Del.).
4. On limitation, the learned counsel has contended that the demand is time barred for the period 1.4.1995 to 30.4.1996 as the show cause notice was served only on 4.12.1996. The extended period of limitation according to the learned counsel, could not be invoked as there was no suppression of material facts by the appellants from the Excise Department, especially when the demand has been worked out only on the scrutiny of the RT-12 returns for the months of May, June & July, 1996 filed by the appellants. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the cases (i) Hindalco Inds. Ltd. v. CCE, Final Order No. EI71/96-B dated 30.1.1996; (ii) ITI Ltd. v. CCE, Final Order No. AI262I2001-NB(DB); and (iii) Tony Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Final Order No. A/1198/97-NB(DB) dated 23.12.1997.
5. On the other hand, the learned JDR, has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order on the question of limitation.
6. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. The duty demand for the period in dispute has been raised on the basis of the RT-12 returns furnished by the appellants. These returns were being regularly submitted by the appellants every month giving each and every details regarding the availment of the concessional rate of duty by them under the Notification in question, referred to above. They had been filing the invoices alongwith those returns. Therefore, each and every fact was in the knowledge of the Excise Department and it could not be said that there was suppression of any material fact by the appellants from the Department. In all the above referred cases, relied upon by the learned counsel, it has been observed by the Tribunal that where demand has been worked out from the RT-12 returns furnished by the assessee, extended period of limitation could not be invoked as suppression of material facts could not be attributed to the assessee. No case law to the contrary has been referred to by the learned JDR. Therefore, following the ratio of the law laid down in all these cases and taking into account the facts of the case, referred to above, we have no option but to hold that extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequently, the duty demand for the disputed period must be held to be time barred.
7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed on the question of limitation with consequential relief, permissible under the law.