COMMISSIONER,CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX vs. KAY KAY PRESS METAL CORPORATION

TAXAP/1545/2011HC GujaratGJHC24025855201121 August 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax) filed an appeal against an order dated May 18, 2011, passed by the Central Excise and Services Tribunal (CESTAT). The assessee, Kay Kay Press Metal Corporation, engaged in manufacturing fabricated iron and steel structures, was visited by Excise Officers on March 31, 2000, based on information of alleged evasion of duty. A show cause notice was issued in March 2003, proposing a demand of Rs. 41,04,217/- for goods cleared during 1998-2000, along with penalty and interest. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed a penalty under Section 11AC, and other penalties and interest. The CESTAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding the demand to be time-barred.

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal was justified in its findings and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The Tribunal correctly held that the demand raised beyond the normal period of limitation, by invoking the extended period under the first proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was barred. This was because, during the relevant period, numerous decisions of the Tribunal indicated that the activities undertaken by the assessee, such as cutting, bending, and punching of plates or channels, did not constitute manufacturing. Consequently, no willful suppression or misstatement could be attributed to the assessee for not paying excise duty, as there was a bona fide doubt regarding the excisability of the goods due to these divergent views. The Supreme Court's observation in Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v/s CCE Chandigarh (2007) was cited, stating that the extended period cannot be invoked when there is a bona fide doubt due to divergent views. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, as it was not possible to establish suppression or intentional evasion by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal committed a substantial error of law in allowing the assessee's appeal on the ground of limitation, by considering a divergence of views, when it is the duty of the assessee to follow a binding precedent even amidst such divergence? Assessee's Contention: The Tribunal was justified in its decision. During the period in question, various Tribunal decisions held that the assessee's activities (cutting, bending, punching of plates or channels) did not amount to manufacturing. Therefore, no willful suppression or misstatement could be attributed to the assessee for not paying excise duty. The Supreme Court in Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v/s CCE Chandigarh (2007) held that the extended period cannot be invoked when there is a bona fide doubt due to divergent views. Mere failure or negligence is insufficient for invoking the extended period. Revenue's Contention: The Tribunal erred by allowing the appeal on limitation based on divergent views. The assessee should have followed the binding precedent. The Revenue argued that there was suppression of facts and intentional evasion of duty by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11A,Section 11AC,Section 35G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TAXAP/1545/2011 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1545 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER,CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX - Appellant(s)

Versus KAY KAY PRESS METAL CORPORATION - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS NAYNABEN K GADHVI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR PARESH M DAVE for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 21/08/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 11A

All 96 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →