The Supreme Court ruled that the Assessee Can be Accused for Suppressing Only Such Facts Which it was Otherwise Required to be Disclosed Under the Law.
Facts
The order impugned in the appeal is that of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT or Tribunal) which had, by a majority of 2:1, allowed an appeal filed by the Respondent-Assessee against an order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot by which a demand for differential duty was confirmed against the assessee by invoking the extended period of limitation available under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
This demand for differential duty was raised for clearances made during the period of September 2000 to March 2004. The Show Cause Notice which was issued on 28.9.2005 relied upon a judgment of this Court on 9.8.2005 in the case of IFGL Refractories Ltd in support of the plea that monetary value of duty benefits obtained through transfer of advance licenses held by the customers constituted additional consideration flowing to the assessee from such customers.
Decision
The division bench of Justice Krishna Murari And Justice Bela M. Trivedi noted that in the show cause notice itself it has been accepted by the revenue that the self-assesment procedure did not require an assessee to submit copies of all contracts, agreements and invoices.
The court did not find any basis for agreeing with the findings of the Commissioner that certain relevant documents had not been filed and thereby suppressed from the scrutiny of the revenue officers.
The court found that the same pertains to a different plant of the Assessee-Respondent where clearances were affected during the period January 2001 to November 2003. The Show Cause Notice in the case was issued and sought to invoke the extended period of limitation by making similar allegations.
The court observed that the counsel for the Revenue has, while pleading that facts be suppressed, been unable to show us the provision or rule which required the assessee in this case to make additional disclosures of documents or facts. The assertion that there was suppression of facts is therefore clearly not tenable.
Case title: The Commissioner, Central Excise And Customs And Another V/S M/S Reliance Industries Ltd.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6033 Of 2009
