TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment about the delay of almost 5 years in acting upon the information, which they had since the year 2009. It is also an apparent-admitted fact that the Revenue Department was regularly conducting the audit of the respondent even after receiving the said information till the year 2012-2013 that too without noticing any short coming as was informed by Income Tax Department in the year 2009. Also in absence of no investigation by the Department, there is no positive evidence on record, which may prove any mis-representation or suppression of facts on part of the assessee - the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while denying the Department the entitlement to invoke the extended period of limitation. It has been observed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The facts in brief relevant for the purpose are that the respondent-assessee are engaged in the manufacturing of Aromatic Chemicals, Essential oils, Synthetics Essential oils, Flavour Concentrates and industrial Fragrances. They are registered with the Central Excise Department. 3. The Revenue Department got an information from the Income Tax Department vide a letter dated 04.12.2009 that there have been some differences found in the raw-material of the assessee. The statement of the Director of assessee/respondent, namely, Shri V.K. Gupta as was recorded by Income Tax Department on 10.02.2009 was also brought to the notice of the appellant- Department. However, the appellants got the statement of another Director, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of Shri Sharat Jain dated 17th January, 2014, where he admitted the clandestine removal on part of the appellant. Hence, the impugned show cause notice cannot be held barred by time. Otherwise also from the information received from the Income-tax Department, there was apparent mis-representation/suppression of facts on part of the appellant. The show cause notice cannot be held as barred by time, as Department was entitled to invoke the extended period. The findings for appeal to be devoid of merits are also objected in view of the evidence on record. The order is accordingly, prayed to be set aside. 6. Per-contra, ld. Counsel has submitted that the impugned proceedings had initiated out of the search of the premis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment has been held to be defective. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the impugned appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record, we observe and hold as follows:- 8. Apparently and admittedly, the impugned demand is solely based upon the letter as was received by the Revenue Department from Income Tax Department on 4th December, 2009. Admittedly no investigation in furtherance of said information has been conducted by the Revenue Department except for recording the statement of the Director of assessee, namely, Shri Sharat Jain on 17th January, 2014. There is no explanation on the part of the Department about the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Seen from all these observations, we are of the opinion that Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while denying the Department the entitlement to invoke the extended period of limitation. 10. As far as the merits involved are concerned, we observe that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not only on the ground of limitation but the appeal of the assessee has been allowed after simultaneously appreciating the merits. It has been specifically observed that the Department could not have produced any evidence to support the allegations of clandestine manufacture / clearance by the assessee-respondent except the statement of Mr. Sharat Jain. It has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no admissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
