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 >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…

56 minutes ago
  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

2 days ago
  • Insurance

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

4 days ago
  • GST

Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities

Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT

No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…

5 days ago