We agree with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the Revenue
was not right in invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to
Sec.11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The respondent-assessee firm herein has two units, both located at
Resham Katra, Taj Ganj, Agra. The Firm got the central excise licence for Unit
No.1. For the second Unit no licence was obtained since no power was being used.
It was availing the exemption given under Exemption Notification No.49 of 1986
dated 10.2.1986.
A raid was conducted on 3.9.1993 on the units of the Firm. In Unit No.1
the Revenue allegedly found certain excess footwears which were not accounted
for. In Unit
No.2 some irregularities were found and accordingly two separate show cause
notices were issued to Unit Nos.1 and 2 on 14.7.1996. The Authority in original
confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notices. The demand was raised
against the Firm and the partners and the Bata India Limited to whom the shoes
were being supplied. The penalty was also levied.
Two sets of appeals were filed before the Tribunal, one by the Firm and
the partners-the respondent herein, and the second by the Bata India Ltd. The
appeal filed by the Bata India Ltd. was accepted. The composite appeal filed by
the Firm and the partners was partly accepted in the case of partners. Against the
Firm the demand was confirmed. The Revenue did not file any appeal against the
order passed in favour of the Bata India Ltd. and the partners. The respondent-
assessee firm filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging the order
of the Tribunal on merits as well as on the point of limitation which was accepted
and the case was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal by the impugned order has held that the Revenue was not
right in invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Sec.11A of the Act. It further held that in the absence of any challenge to the order passed in
the appeal of Bata India Ltd. and the partners of the Firm, the appeal filed against
the Firm could not be proceeded with.
We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. As the Revenue had
accepted the decision in the case of Bata India Ltd. arising from the same order of
the authority in original and there being no change on facts the appeal against the
respondent could not be proceeded with. We are also in agreement with the view
taken by the Tribunal that Revenue was not justified in invoking the extended
period of limitation. The appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
New Delhi, September 25, 2008.