Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 851 - CESTAT AHMEDABADTime limitation - Revenue held that the demand for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006 as time barred, but, demand from April 2006 onwards was maintained - case of appellant is that once the fact of the transaction has come to the notice of the Audit and the said period was held time barred, for the subsequent period it cannot be said that there is any suppression of fact - Held that:- The Ld. Commissioner has admitted that the issue was raised in the Audit Report dated 20.10.2008 in respect of the Audit conducted for the period April 2006 to August 2008. On the basis of this Audit Report, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held the demand for period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006 as time barred - We failed to understand why the demand for remaining period should not be held time barred on the same analogy. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the last Audits conducted on 28.08.2006 to 30.08.2006, and if the Audit officers have not raised this issue for the subsequent period, no suppression of fact cannot be alleged against the appellant. Therefore, we do not agree with the discriminative finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in as much as the demand for 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006 was held time barred and for the subsequent period, the demand was held within time - Since, Audit has been conducted right from 28.08.2006 to 30.08.2006 and show cause notice was issued on 13.04.2009 the entire demand stand time barred. The entire demand is time barred - appeal allowed on the ground of limitation.
|