TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h weigh around 2-2.5 gms, which are required to be assessed to Central Excise Duty under Section 4/4A of the Act, has been mired in litigation for quite some time. In fact, there were contradicting judgments by the Tribunal - The law has finally been settled only by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Arecanut & Cocoa Marketing & Processing Co-Op. Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 506 - SUPREME COURT] - Hence, certainly, before this date, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Continental Foundation Joint Venture case [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] will apply on all fours to the facts of this appeal, where it was held that Demand raised by the department has been quashed on the ground of adjudication beyond the normal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere not required to be affixed with M.R.P. as they are exempted under Rule 34(b) of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 (SWM (PC) Rules); that the jars/pouches are admittedly a wholesale pack, hence, these goods merited valuation in terms of Section 4 of the Act only. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by way of Show Cause Notices which culminated in an order dt. 22.7.2010 (impugned order) inter alia ordering as under: A. In respect of SCN No. 06/2007 dt. 26.03.2007 demand of ₹ 54,90,383/- for the period 01.03.2002 to 31.03.2006 with interest confirmed equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. B. In respect of SCN No. 13/2007 dt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 26.03.2007, which is beyond the normal period of limitation. Therefore, the demand of ₹ 52,92,341/- for the said period is barred by limitation. (ii) Extended period of limitation is not invokable. The Department was aware that the appellant was clearing the sugar confectionaries in jars/pouches and valuing the jars under Section 4A. This can be seen from the declaration dated 11.12.2000 filed by them in terms of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (iii) It is settled legal position that suppression with intention to evade payment of duty cannot be alleged when the dispute involves complex interpretation of legal provisions. (iv) The present dispute, viz., valuation under Section 4/4A, involves complex interpretat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of limitation) by way of adjustment of CENVAT Credit on 27.02.2015. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of the Revenue, Ld. AR Shri. S. Govindarajan, supports the findings in the impugned order. He drew our attention to para 9.H at page 23 of the impugned order where the adjudicating authority has analyzed the contentions of appellant against invocation of extended period. He submits that the present case is one involving suppression of certain vital information for deciding the application of M.R.P. valuation under Section 4A. It is not a case of interpretation of law, as made out by the appellants. For the same reasons, the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority are also very much in order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that packages containing 100 or more pieces of chocolate, weighing 5.5 gms will not attract assessment under Section 4A ibid., as reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. A107 (S.C.). This is the settled law in the matter which the Ld. Advocate was fair to point out and concede. 5.3 The only plea made by the Ld. Advocate is that the issue is hit by limitation and, therefore, the demands cannot survive. We find merit in this plea. The Supreme Court in Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh-I 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) has held that when there were different sources operating at different points of time and correctness of CESTAT judgment was doubted and matter referred to a Larger Bench, there was scope for entertaining do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06/2007 dt. 26.03.2007 for the period 01.03.2002 to 31.03.2006 will be hit by limitation beyond the normal period of limitation. Hence, only the periods covered by the other SCNs dated 24.04.2007, 14.03.2008, 21.08.2008 and 30.04.2009 within the normal period alone will survive, as under : SCN No. and date Period Duty Demand (Rs.) 13/2007 dated 24.04.2007 01.04.2006 to 28.02.2007 9,34,949 27/2008 dated 14.03.2008 01.03.2007 to 31.07.2007 4,33,774 60/2008 dated 21.08.2008 01.08.2007 to 31.03.2008 6,18,406 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
