The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Bangalore Bench held that the misdeclaration of description of the goods invite extended period of limitation.
Alleging that the items manufactured and cleared by the appellants are parts of the Solar Power Generating System, show-cause notice was issued proposing denial of benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 to them and demanding duty of Rs.10,00,32,771/- for the period December 2011 to June 2014 along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and equal penalty and the duty amount deposited by the appellant had been appropriated against the demand. Hence, the present appeal.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that non-production of the said certificate at best be a procedural lapse and substantial benefit should not be denied to them. The Department cannot feign ignorance of the facts as they have been filing regularly periodical ER-1 returns with the Department and no objection was ever raised on the said returns by the Revenue.
On the issue of limitation, the AR for the Revenue referring to the findings of the Commissioner submitted that the appellant all along declared their product as Solar Power Generating System in their statutory records filed with the Department in the form of periodical ER-1 returns. The description furnished by the appellant in the ER-1 returns never matched with goods they have manufactured and cleared availing the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.
A Two Member Bench comprising DM Misra, Judicial Member and R Bhagya Devi, Technical Member observed that “On going through one of the sample ER-1 return, filed with the Department, for the period February 2014, we find that under the heading ‘Description of Goods’, the item is mentioned as “power”, “ELE”, “Solar”. Thus, there is no correct declaration of the description of the goods mentioned in the ER-1 Returns which have been manufactured and cleared by them by raising invoices mentioning a different description.”
“Therefore, the judgments cited by the appellant are not applicable to the present case. On the other hand, mis-declaration of the description of the goods would invite extended period of limitation in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Urmin Products P. Ltd. & others” the Bench noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
