Ece Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, New Delhi ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants used spare parts for repair or replacement of goods during the warranty period. Although those parts attracted excise duty, the appellants had availed MODVAT credit on the inputs and failed to reverse that credit when no duty was actually paid. The Department therefore issued two show-cause notices on 28-5-1993 and 4-11-1993 seeking duty and penalty for non-reversal of the credit; those notices were adjudicated by order dated 2-3-1994. A further show-cause notice dated 27-5-1994 covering the same subject-matter was later issued and adjudicated on 13-11-1997.

The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) upheld the Department’s demand, holding both that duty was payable and that the extended limitation period under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression. The present appeal challenges that decision before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether spare parts used for repair or replacement during the warranty period are excisable and therefore attract central excise duty.

Whether, in relation to the show-cause notice dated 27-5-1994, the Department could invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite having issued earlier show-cause notices on the same subject-matter.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Decision dated 25-3-2003 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3643-44 of 1999	Parts used for repair or replacement during the warranty period are excisable and attract duty.	The Court relied on this decision to hold that duty is payable on the parts involved in the present appeal.
P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (2003) 3 SCC 599	If earlier show-cause notices on the same subject-matter have been issued, there is no wilful suppression or mis-statement; hence, the extended limitation under Section 11-A cannot be invoked.	Applying this principle, the Court ruled that the extended limitation period was not available to the Department in the present matter.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Decision dated 25-3-2003 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3643-44 of 1999

Parts used for repair or replacement during the warranty period are excisable and attract duty.

The Court relied on this decision to hold that duty is payable on the parts involved in the present appeal.

P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (2003) 3 SCC 599

If earlier show-cause notices on the same subject-matter have been issued, there is no wilful suppression or mis-statement; hence, the extended limitation under Section 11-A cannot be invoked.

Applying this principle, the Court ruled that the extended limitation period was not available to the Department in the present matter.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. On the excisability of warranty-period parts, the Court adopted the ratio of its earlier decision dated 25-3-2003, holding that such parts are goods on which duty is payable.

2. On limitation, the Court examined whether the Department could invoke the extended period under Section 11-A. It noted that two prior show-cause notices covering the same issue were already issued and pending adjudication when the contested notice of 27-5-1994 was served. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in P&B Pharmaceuticals, the Court concluded that the existence of earlier notices negated any allegation of wilful suppression. Consequently, the extended limitation period was unavailable.

3. As suppression was held absent, the statutory basis for imposing penalties also fell away.

Holding and Implications

HELD: (a) Duty is payable on spare parts used during the warranty period; (b) the extended limitation period under Section 11-A is not available in respect of the show-cause notice dated 27-5-1994; (c) no penalty is imposable; and (d) the Tribunal’s judgment is set aside to that extent, with the appeal disposed of and no order as to costs.

Implications: The appellants remain liable for basic excise duty on the parts, but the Department cannot recover duty for a period beyond the normal limitation, nor can it levy penalties. The decision reinforces the principle that once the Department has issued earlier show-cause notices on the same issue, it cannot allege suppression to extend the limitation period.

Ece Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, New Delhi .

Order

1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 4-3-1999. The question is whether the parts used for repair or replacement during the warranty period are excisable. This question is answered by a decision of this Court rendered on 25-3-2003 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3643-44 of 1999. On the principles laid down in that decision, it is held that duty is payable on the parts.

2. However, in this case a further question arises i.e whether in respect of the show-cause notice concerned dated 27-5-1994, the respondents were entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the appellant and held that there was suppression and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was available.

3. Some few facts necessary for a decision on this point are as follows:

The appellants were using parts, in respect of which the MODVAT credit was availed. Even though they have not paid duty, they did not reverse the credit. The Department, therefore, issued show-cause notices on 28-5-1993 and 4-11-1993. By these two show-cause notices the appellants were called upon to show cause as to why duty and penalty be not levied on them for not having reversed the MODVAT credit. These show-cause notices were adjudicated by an order dated 2-3-1994. Thereafter, the show-cause notice concerned dated 27-5-1994 was issued. This has been adjudicated by an order dated 13-11-1997.

4. In the case of P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector Of Central Excise . (2003) 3 SCC 599, (2003) 2 Scale 390 the question was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the Department has earlier issued show-cause notices in respect of the same subject-matter. It has been held that in such circumstances, it could not be said that there was any wilful suppression or misstatement and that, therefore, the extended period under Section 11-A could not be invoked.

5. In our view, the principles laid down in the above case fully apply here. As earlier proceedings in respect of the same subject-matter were pending adjudication it could not be said that there was any suppression and the extended period under Section 11-A was not available.

6. To this extent the impugned judgment requires to be and is set aside. Ordered accordingly.

7. It must also be mentioned that as there is no suppression, penalty cannot be imposed.

8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 4935 of 1999, decided on March 27, 2003

Ece Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, New Delhi .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ece Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, New Delhi .

Comments