TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and unbranded product cleared - The declaration filed with effect from 5th April, 1994 was a false declaration - The basic reason is the RG-1 register, followed by RT-12 returns, the letter of Superintendent of Central Excise dated 14th November, 1994 and the reply dated 30th November, 199 – Hence, the RG-1 register which reflects the entries in RT-12 returns, does not have basic documents to support the entries made - unless special knowledge of the appellant is inserted, it would not be possible to ascertain which customer had received the branded product and which customer received own branded/unbranded product. - Central Excise Appeal No. 01 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2013 - Barin Ghosh And Servesh Kumar Gupta, JJ. For the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal. Despite several notices, appellant did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the original declaration itself was a false declaration and that came to light later and, accordingly, there was no impediment in exercising the power under Section 11A of the Act. The Tribunal held that imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was incorrect, inasmuch as, Section 11AC was inserted in the Act subsequent to the period under assessment. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred, where the only contention of the appellant is that it was obligatory on the part of the revenue to investigate every aspect of the matter, which was creating a doubt in their mind. It was contended that when the reply was give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the knowledge of the Department and, accordingly, there was no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. In the instant case, the Tribunal has opined that the very declaration filed with effect from 5th April, 1994 was a false declaration. The basic reason thereof is the RG-1 register, followed by RT-12 returns, the letter of Superintendent of Central Excise dated 14th November, 1994 and the reply thereto dated 30th November, 1994. In other words, the RG-1 register which reflects the entries in RT-12 returns, does not have basic documents to support the entries made therein; as unless special knowledge of the appellant is inserted, it would not be possible to ascertain which customer, in fact, received the branded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
