Kirupakaran Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Sets Aside Excise Demand Because Extended Limitation Was Invoked Without Justification; CESTAT Allows Appeal Because Department Failed to Prove Suppression of Facts; CESTAT Rejects Revenue’s Case Because Appellate Order Was a Non-Speaking Order; Excise Proceedings Fail Because Show Cause Notice Was Issued After Department Already Knew the Facts.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, allowed the appeal filed by a pickle manufacturer and set aside the Order-in-Appeal that had upheld the demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the Department. The dispute arose after officers of the Headquarters Preventive Unit of Chennai-II Commissionerate visited the appellant’s premises on 12.02.2013 and collected records and documents. Subsequently, statements of the proprietor were recorded. The Department alleged that the appellant’s turnover had crossed the prescribed threshold for a Small Scale Industry (SSI) unit, making it ineligible for the SSI exemption limit. It was further alleged that the appellant had cleared excisable goods without payment of duty and without obtaining Central Excise registration, thereby suppressing facts with an intention to evade duty. Based on these allegations, a show cause notice dated 26.04.2016 invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and proposed demand of duty, interest, and penalty.
