JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and its parts and accessories. The short point involved in the present appeal is as to whether during the period in question i.e. from 1st December, 1990 to 25th May, 1994, Cess is leviable in respect of parts and accessories under the provisions of Section 9 of Industries (Development & Regulations) Act, 1955 or not.
2. There is no dispute that after 26.5.1994, no Cess is leviable in respect of parts and accessories of automobiles inasmuch as a Notification was issued by the Ministry of Industries exempting components and accessories of automobiles from payment of Cess.
3. The appellants have strongly contested that no Cess was payable even prior to the said exemption Notification, on the parts and accessories of automobiles and the demand in any case, is barred by limitation. Sri J.P. Khaitan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that as per the understanding of the industry, Cess was leviable only on complete motor vehicles. Even the Department entertained the same view and approved the Classification Lists filed by the appellants showing the levy of Cess only on motor vehicles. RT-12 returns were finally assessed. He submits that as non-payment of Cess on parts and accessories of motor vehicles was known to the Department and as the Cess was not being paid with the consent of Revenue, the proviso to Section 11A is not invocable. He submits that after the exemption Notification was issued on 26.5.94, the Revenue entertained a view that prior to the said date, Cess was leviable and accordingly, show cause notice was issued only on 1.12.95.
4. We have also heard Shri A.K. Mondal, learned J.D.R.
5. Without going into the merits of the case, we find that the appellants have a strong case on limitation. There is no dispute about the fact that the Classification Lists were approved by the proper officer and RT-12 returns were finalised by the concerned Range Superintendent. The reasoning of the authorities below that non-mentioning of the rate of Cess in the Classification Lists and RT-12 returns would amount to misstatement in the statutory records and documents, cannot be accepted inasmuch as if the Revenue was of the view that parts and accessories are also leviable to Cess, nothing prevented the proper officer to direct the appellants to pay Cess on the said goods and approve the Classification Lists accordingly. The approval of the Classification Lists showing non-payment of Cess in respect of the pars and accessories, only reflects upon the understanding of the Revenue that the said parts and accessories were not leviable to Cess. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants have indulged in any misstatement or suppression with an intention to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, we hold that the demand raised for the period from 1.12.90 to 25.5.94 by show cause notice dated 1.12.95, is barred by limitation. Accordingly, without expressing our opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned Order on the point of limitation.
Pronounced in the open court.