COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER versus M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2023] 9 S.C.R. 1286 · Decided: 04-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1286 : 2023 INSC 591
1286
THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
AND ANOTHER
v.
M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 6033 of 2009)
JULY 04, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Central Excise Act, 1944: s. 11A – Demand for differential
duty of excise – Invocation of extended period of limitation –
Allegation that the assessee incorrectly determined the assessable
value of its finished goods by not including the monetary value of
the duty benefits that it had obtained from its customers as a result
of the transfer of the advance licenses – Demand of differential
duty during the material period by the Department invoking the
extended period of limitation available u/s. 11A(1) proviso – Demand
raised beyond the normal limitation period of one year – Allegation
that the assessee suppressed the relevant facts and made wilful
misstatements withholding material information and documents from
the department – Demand for differential duty confirmed against
the assessee – However, the tribunal set aside the same – On appeal,
held: In the absence of any specific column or note as under Form
ER-1, requiring separate disclosure of the value of deemed export
clearances, no merit in the findings of the adjudicating authority
that there was suppression of facts as a consequence of assessee’s
failure to separately disclose the value of deemed export clearances
– Moreover, the issue of valuation involved is one where two
plausible views could co-exist – In such cases, it would be totally
unjustified to invoke the extended period of limitation by considering
the assessee’s view to be lacking bonafides – Whereas, assessee’s
conduct during the material period cannot be considered to be
malafide when it merely followed the view taken by the tribunal in
IFGL’s case which was later overturned by this Court – As regards,
disclosure of facts, the assessee had disclosed to the department its
pricing policy by giving separate letters – Assessee can be accused
for suppressing only such facts which it was otherwise required to
be disclosed under the law – However, the revenue unable to show
the provision or rule which required the assessee to make additional
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1287
disclosures of documents or facts – Thus, the assertion that there
was suppression of facts not tenable – Furthermore, the demands
raised are time barred.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The format of the ER-1/RT-12 return which the
assessee was required to file on a monthly basis for intimating to
the department the value of clearances effected and the amounts
of duties paid thereon. There is no separate column or
requirement in these forms for declaring the value and other
details of clearances effected to the deemed export buyers i.e.
holders of advance licenses. Note 4 under Form ER–1 does
require separate details to be mentioned for exports under bond.
Indisputedly clearance made to domestic buyers even if they are
considered deemed exports are not clearances for “exports under
bond” for which category of clearances alone requirement existed
for separate disclosure in the ER-1/RT-12 returns. In the absence
of any specific column or note similar to note 4, requiring separate
disclosure of the value of deemed export clearances, there is no
merit in the findings of the adjudicating authority that there was
suppression of facts as a consequence of assessee’s failure to
separately disclose the value of deemed export clearances. An
accusation of non–disclosure can only be made if there is in the
first instance a requirement to disclose. [Para 20][1297-B-D]
1.2 Note 4 to Form ER-1 requires separate details of
clearances to be mentioned for exports under Bond. There is no
reference in the said notes to deemed exports or supplies made
to holders of advance licenses. The submissions that the assessee
was never required to separately furnish details of clearances
made to holders of advance licenses is accepted. Neither the
show cause notice nor the civil appeal filed by the Revenue before
this Court contain any reference to the wrongful clubbing of
deemed export clearances under the details meant for domestic
clearances. Also the order of the tribunal does not contain any
reference to this particular aspect which was the main thrust of
the oral arguments made by the Counsel for the Revenue before
this Court. The Revenue cannot be permitted to argue its matters
by goi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.