High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Commissioner of Central Excise Commissio v. M/s Jay Bharat Maruti Limited, Gurgaon ( - CEA-127-1995  RD-P&H 9733 (2 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CEA No.127 of 2006
Date of decision:7.11.2006
Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi III, Gurgaon.
M/s Jay Bharat Maruti Limited, Gurgaon (Haryana) ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the appellant.
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 22.12.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal) in Appeal No.E/1051/04-EXCISE, proposing following questions of law:- "i) Whether duty can be recovered under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of limitation i.e. five years;
ii) Whether the respondent firm is liable to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act; iii) Whether the penalty is liable to be imposed upon the respondent firm under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC of the central Excise Act, 1944;
iv) Whether the finding by the learned Tribunal is perverse?"
The assessee included value of free supply items in valuation of assembly production by it. It paid duty on waste arising out of rejected parts. On these facts, the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay penalty and had intentionally evaded duty.
Though, the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority CEA No.127 of 2006 2
upheld the penalty, the Tribunal set aside the same with the following observations:-
"The appellate had entered the entire quantity of components received by it in its books of account. It was discharging duty on the assemblies produced by including the cost of each of the components going into the assembly. Wherever there was rejection of components, the full facts about the method of valuation of assembly was known to Revenue authorities. The non-inclusion of the value of rejected parts in the assessable value of assembly produced by the appellant was not for evasion of duty. The finding that there was suppression of facts is not sustainable." In view of the above finding, demand of duty within the normal period under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') was upheld but the remaining demand was set aside as barred by limitation. The Tribunal also set aside the penalty.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the finding recorded.
The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is not shown, in any manner, to be perverse. The order of the Tribunal setting aside invocation of extended period of limitation and liability of penalty is, thus, not liable to be interfered with.
No substantial question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
November 7, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.