High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Central Excise Case — Limitation Bar Upheld. Show Cause Notice Issued After Six Years Held Time-Barred as Assessee Did Not Suppress Facts.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 39
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 27-09-2005. The CESTAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the show cause notice issued by the Revenue was time-barred. The dispute arose from a show cause notice dated 10-02-1999 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to M/s. Pooja Ferro Alloys Ltd., alleging that the assessee had wrongfully availed modvat credit in three instances: (a) Rs. 1,25,917/- in contravention of Rule 57Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which prohibited credit on capital goods before 1st March, 1994; (b) Rs. 57,775/- in violation of Notification No. 16/94 CE(NT) dated 30-03-1994, which barred credit after 30-06-1994 on gate passes issued before 01-04-1994; and (c) Rs. 17,618/- for availing credit twice on the same invoice. The alleged wrongful claims were made on 06-06-1995. The assessee replied to the show cause notice, contending that the notice was barred by limitation as there was no suppression of facts. The Additional Commissioner of Customs and Excise confirmed the demands under (a) and (c) but not (b). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the inadmissibility of the credit but held that the show cause notice was barred by limitation. The Revenue's second appeal to CESTAT was dismissed, leading to the present appeal. The High Court considered the sole issue of limitation. The court noted that the show cause notice was issued on 10-02-1999 for credits availed on 06-06-1995, i.e., after a gap of about three years and eight months. Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the normal period for issuing a show cause notice is six months from the relevant date, extendable to five years if the assessee suppressed facts with intent to evade duty. The Revenue argued that the assessee had suppressed facts, but the court found no evidence of suppression. The assessee had maintained proper accounts and the credits were reflected in the RG-23C Part II account. The court held that the Revenue failed to establish any deliberate concealment or fraud. Consequently, the show cause notice was beyond the normal limitation period and was time-barred. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT.

Headnote

A) Central Excise - Limitation - Show Cause Notice - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - The Revenue issued a show cause notice on 10-02-1999 for modvat credit availed on 06-06-1995, alleging wrongful claims. The assessee contended the notice was time-barred as there was no suppression of facts. The Commissioner and CESTAT upheld the limitation bar. The High Court affirmed, holding that the notice was issued beyond the normal period of six months and the Revenue failed to establish suppression of facts by the assessee. (Paras 3-10)

B) Central Excise - Modvat Credit - Capital Goods - Rule 57Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - The assessee availed modvat credit of Rs. 1,25,917/- on capital goods before 1st March, 1994, which was prohibited under Rule 57Q(2). The Revenue alleged contravention but the show cause notice was held time-barred. (Paras 4-6)

C) Central Excise - Modvat Credit - Double Claim - The assessee availed credit twice on the same invoice amounting to Rs. 17,618/-. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand but the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT held the notice time-barred. (Paras 4-7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the show cause notice issued on 10-02-1999 for alleged wrongful modvat credit availed on 06-06-1995 was barred by limitation under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the show cause notice was time-barred as the Revenue failed to establish suppression of facts by the assessee. The orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT were affirmed.

Law Points

  • Limitation period for show cause notice under Central Excise Act
  • 1944
  • Suppression of facts by assessee
  • Modvat credit on capital goods
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011:BHC-GOA:1352-DB

Excise Appeal No. 4 of 2006

2011-06-22

S.A. BOBDE, F.M. REIS

2011:BHC-GOA:1352-DB

C.A. Ferreira (Assistant Solicitor General for Appellant), H.K. Maingi (Advocate for Respondent)

The Commissioner of Central Excise, ICE House, Patto, Panaji, Goa

M/s. Pooja Ferro Alloys Ltd., L-4, Cuncolim Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Goa

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal by Revenue against CESTAT order upholding limitation bar on show cause notice for wrongful modvat credit.

Remedy Sought

Revenue sought to set aside CESTAT order and confirm the demand for modvat credit.

Filing Reason

Revenue challenged the CESTAT order that held the show cause notice time-barred.

Previous Decisions

Additional Commissioner confirmed demand for Rs. 1,25,917/- and Rs. 17,618/-; Commissioner (Appeals) upheld inadmissibility but held notice time-barred; CESTAT affirmed Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Issues

Whether the show cause notice dated 10-02-1999 for modvat credit availed on 06-06-1995 was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant (Revenue) argued that the assessee had suppressed facts, warranting extended limitation period of five years. Respondent (Assessee) contended that there was no suppression of facts and the notice was issued beyond the normal six-month period, hence time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the normal limitation period for issuing a show cause notice is six months from the relevant date, extendable to five years only if the assessee suppressed facts with intent to evade duty. In the absence of evidence of suppression, the notice issued beyond six months is time-barred.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise questions the order dated 27-09-2005, by which the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has upheld the order of the Commissioner that the claim of the Revenue is time barred. The assessee replied to the said show cause notice and claimed that they were barred by limitation since the assessee had not hidden facts.

Procedural History

Show cause notice issued on 10-02-1999 by Deputy Commissioner. Additional Commissioner confirmed demand on 31-07-2000. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld inadmissibility but held notice time-barred on 30-11-2001. CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal on 27-09-2005. Revenue filed present appeal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944. High Court dismissed appeal on 22-06-2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 11A, Section 35G
  • Central Excise Rules, 1944: Rule 57Q(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Central Excise Case — Limitation Bar Upheld. Show Cause Notice Issued After Six Years Held Time-Barred as Assessee Did Not Suppress Facts.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased Employee. Deceased conductor returning on scooter from depot held equally negligent; compensation reduced by 50% with proper deductions under Mo...