Commnr. of Central
Excise, Kanpur Vs. M/S. New Decent Footwear Industries  INSC 1636 (25
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1140 OF 2003 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.
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.