Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 190 - SUPREME COURT
Whether extended period of limitation envisaged under the proviso appended to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case?
Held that:- It is not a case where the Respondents had not disclosed the activities of manufacturing products carried out by them by declaration or otherwise. They responded to each and every query of the Appellant, as and when called upon to do so. The authorities of the Appellant must have verified the said disclosures. At least they are expected to do so. The disclosure made by the Respondent was acceptable to them. Their bona fide was never questioned. It is not a fit case where this Court should interfere. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties shall, however, pay and bear their own costs.