Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 440 - AT - Central ExciseAvailment of CENVAT Credit - Original copy of documents not available - Additional Commissioner dropped demand as barred by limitation - Commissioner invoked extended period of limitation - Willful misstatement of facts - proviso to Section 11A (1) has not been invoked in the show cause notice - Whether the demand of duty is barred by limitation on the grounds of non-mentioning of proviso to Section 11-A in the show cause notice or such non mention has to be held as of no consequence - Held that:- Appellant have advanced the argument that since the proviso to Section 11 A was not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice, the demand should be held has barred by limitation. However, proviso to section 11A is part and parcel of section 11A. Merely because it was not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice when the allegation of suppression are clearly specified and the demand of duty is being raised under section 11A, non-mentioning of the specific proviso of section 11A will not the vitiate the proceedings as long as the charges are clearly brought out in the show cause notice. Not only that section 11A, includes the proviso to the said section and the entire section stands mentioned in the show cause notice, it has to be held that the provisos of the said section also get invoked - Decided against assessee.
|