Excise/Custom

SCN issued for change in excise classification of goods barred by limitation being known to deptt.

The Show cause notice issued for change in excise classification of goods was barred by limitation, as it was intimated – SC dismissed appeal of the Department

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2853 (2019) (04) SC

The appellant had changed the goods classification under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of said change in classification, investigation was conducted and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to classify the product under old headings of the Tariff Act by invoking extended period of limitation.

The matter was adjudicated and by invoking the extended period of limitation, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty was imposed on the appellant.

Against the said order, the appellant approached the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)

The CESTAT observed that the appellant had written a letter to the department for change of their classification and also filed ER-1 return accordingly.

The CESTAT held that as the fact of change in classification was in the knowledge of the department, therefore, the show cause notice issued to the appellant was barred by limitation.

Accordingly, CESTAT held that for the period within limitation the appellant was liable to pay duty along with interest. As the action of the appellant was in the knowledge of the department itself, therefore, no penalty was imposable on the appellant.

It was further held that as the appellant was liable to pay duty and had not availed Cenvat credit on input and input services, for the period for which demand had been confirmed, the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on input and input services.

Against the abobe order passed by the CESTAT, the excise department had filed an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CESTAT and dismissed the appeal

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits

Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…

13 hours ago
  • bankruptcy

SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC

Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…

16 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus

Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…

1 day ago
  • ITAT

Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC

Application though named as rectification but if tax imposed is not legitimate then it also touches upon the merit –…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of current FMV to be further…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

AO was directed to serve notice of hearing through physical mode upon assessee 

ITAT directed AO to serve notice of hearing both through electronic and physical mode upon the assessee  In a recent…

2 days ago