Commnr. Of Central Excise, Kanpur vs M/S. New Decent Footwear Industries

Commnr. of Central Excise, Kanpur ...Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. New Decent Footwear Industries ...Respondent(s)

ORDER

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 -2-

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.

-3-

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.

.................J. (ASHOK BHAN)

................J. (V.S. SIRPURKAR) New Delhi, September 25, 2008.