Self-Assessment Of Assessee Not Rendered Malafide Merely Because It Was Based On A CETSTAT View Which Was Later Overturned : Supreme Court
Live LawThe Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time barred. The bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi held that during the relevant period in consideration, i.e., September 2000 to March 2004, Reliance was holding a bonafide belief that it was correctly discharging its duty liability by relying on the CESTAT’s decision dated 28.7.2000 in the case of M/s IFGL Refractories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,. The bench remarked that though the view taken by the CESTAT in IFGL was overturned by the Supreme Court on 9.8.2005 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s IFGL Refractories Limited, 2005 RLT 663, the same did not render such belief of the assessee a malafide belief particularly when such a belief was emanating from the view taken by a division bench of the Tribunal. Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 11A - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the CESTAT by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time barred. The bench held that during the relevant period in consideration, i.e., September 2000 to March 2004, Reliance was holding a bonafide belief that it was correctly discharging its duty liability by relying on the CESTAT’s decision dated 28.7.2000 in the case of M/s IFGL Refractories Ltd, even though the same was overturned by the Supreme Court on 9.8.2005.