Commissioner , GST And Central Excise, Rourkela vs. M/S.Jai Balaji Jyoti Steel LTD.

Facts

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Rourkela, against an order dated February 26, 2020, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata. The CESTAT had held that notices issued to the respondent-assessee, M/s. Jai Balaji Jyoti Steel Ltd., under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were time-barred. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the respondent-assessee had suppressed information regarding transactions with two buyer companies. The Department contended that the assessee failed to make a specific declaration to them, while the assessee argued that necessary declarations were made in their annual report, which was in the public domain.

Held

The Court held that the CESTAT was correct in its finding that the notices issued under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were time-barred. The reasoning was that the Respondent-Assessee had made necessary declarations regarding related party transactions in their annual report, which was available in the public domain. The Department failed to dispute the availability of this report. Consequently, the Court found that there was no positive suppression of material information by the Respondent-Assessee. The Court reasoned that once the annual report was in the public domain, the onus was on the Department to demonstrate suppression, a burden they did not discharge. There was no requirement for the assessee to make a separate specific declaration to the Department when the information was already publicly accessible. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT erred in holding that notices issued to the Respondent-Assessee under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were time-barred, given that there was no material to show suppression of information regarding transactions with two buyer companies? Petitioner's Argument (Department): The Department argued that the CESTAT's decision was erroneous. They relied on the order of the 1st Appellate Authority, which held that the assessee did not make a specific declaration to the Department, implying a lack of transparency. Respondent's Argument (Assessee): The Respondent-Assessee contended that they had made necessary declarations in their annual report, which was publicly available. They argued that once this report was in the public domain, the onus shifted to the Department to prove suppression, which the Department failed to do.