Sunshine Steel Industries Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi allowed the appeal filed by Sunshine Steel Industries against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the adjudicating authority’s confirmation of excise duty demand.
The appellant manufactured S.S. Circles and S.S. Utensils. According to the Department, the appellant’s partners were also Directors of M/s Ramdev Stainless Strips Pvt. Ltd. (RSSL), making RSSL a sister concern and related unit under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Department consequently considered that the value of S.S. Utensils sold to RSSL should have been determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
A Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2015 raised a demand of Rs. 87,31,992/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed short-paid duty of Rs. 85,396/- with interest and penalty by order dated 08.03.2017. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order on 08.06.2018.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant challenged the demand on merits and limitation. It contended that the normal one-year limitation under Section 11A(1) applied and that the extended five-year period under Section 11A(4) could not be invoked because there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.
The Department submitted that the appellant had not disclosed the required information in its ER-1 returns and supported invocation of the extended period.
