Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1999 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1999 (12) TMI 483 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Duty demand on biscuits due to non-inclusion of container costs in assessable value.
2. Validity of re-issuing show cause notice for the same demand.
3. Invocation of extended period for duty demand.
4. Allegations of suppression of facts to evade duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal concerned a duty demand on biscuits due to the failure to include container costs in the assessable value. The Commissioner (Appeals) had vacated the earlier order due to a lack of grounds for invoking the extended period. The appellants argued that there was no intention to evade duty, as the issue had been decided in their favor previously. The department re-issued a show cause notice, which the appellants contested as time-barred and lacking jurisdiction.

Issue 2:
The learned SDR argued that the re-issuance of the show cause notice was justified following the open remand by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department asserted that the duty demand was valid for the period within five years from the re-issued notice, citing suppression of facts. The Assistant Commissioner's notice mentioned recoverability under Section 11A due to alleged suppression.

Issue 3:
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the reasons for invoking the extended period were not clearly stated by the Assistant Commissioner. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was emphasized that the Revenue must prove suppression with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal found that the earlier issue regarding container costs had been settled and not reviewed, indicating no suppression or intent to evade duty.

Issue 4:
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the appellants' arguments, setting aside the impugned order. It was concluded that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and re-opening the matter through a fresh show cause notice was deemed impermissible after the previous proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the lack of grounds for invoking the extended period and the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were followed accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates