2018 (5) TMI 548 - AT - Central Excise

Time limitation - the demand for the period 1994-95 to 1997-98 has been raised vide show-cause notice dated 30.09.1999 - sub-contract - liability of duty - Held that - In the case of Craft Interiors (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2008 (6) TMI 122 - CESTAT Bangalore , Tribunal on similar issue has held that demand should be limited to normal period - the demand cannot be sustained on account of limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether duty liability exists on furniture and fixture.
2. Who is liable to pay excise duty if work is sub-contracted.
3. Invocation of longer period for duty demand.
4. Consideration of limitation for duty demand.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability on furniture and fixture
The appeals were filed against an Order-in-Original confirming demand and imposing penalties on two entities engaged in construction contracts. The appellant argued that no tax can be levied on fixtures and no notional profit can be added. They contended that the first Order-in-Original had already finalized these issues. The appellant also challenged the onus placed on them to prove goods as fixtures, citing a Tribunal decision for support. The counsel further argued that the show-cause notice did not specify the relevant sub-clause of the Central Excise Rules, thus no penalty could be imposed. Additionally, the imposition of penalties on the company director was disputed due to the absence of goods confiscation.

Issue 2: Liability in sub-contracted work
The Tribunal examined whether excise duty liability arises when work is sub-contracted. The appellant highlighted the common office used by multiple firms and the exemption status of one entity due to turnover. The involvement of various individuals in different capacities within the companies was emphasized to establish the nature of operations and responsibilities.

Issue 3: Invocation of longer period for duty demand
The Tribunal considered the invocation of a longer period for duty demand, referencing a previous case where various interpretations led to reduced demands at different stages of adjudication. The Tribunal concluded that in cases of interpretation, invoking the longer period may not be appropriate, especially when there is no intention to evade duty. The Tribunal relied on several case laws to support the argument that time limits should be adhered to unless there is clear evidence of evasion.

Issue 4: Consideration of limitation for duty demand
After careful consideration, the Tribunal held that the longer period could not be invoked in the present case. Citing a specific case law on a similar issue, the Tribunal determined that the demand should be limited to the normal period, thereby setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals. The decision was based on the principle that demands should be limited to the normal period unless there is clear evidence justifying an extended period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the duty liability on furniture and fixtures, liability in sub-contracted work, the invocation of longer periods for duty demands, and the consideration of limitations for duty demands. The decision provided detailed analysis and legal reasoning to support the findings, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals based on the limitations issue.