Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued soon
Home
2011 (7) TMI 559 - AT - Central ExciseDuty evasion - C.B.E.&C. Letter F.No.137/167/2006-CX-4 dated 3.10.07 - Revenue contended that as per para 4 of the Order-in-Original that the adjudicating authority considered the issue of suppression of the facts and found that the plea of no knowledge or bonafidely did not appear to be sustainable as they themselves have received services from multi system operator on which they had earlier claimed the service tax - Held that - Considering argument of the assessee that the delay was due to the fact that it was a new provision and unawareness of law and financial hardship to which the office of the assessee was not fully acquainted with and the delay was only bonafide - As decided in Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. V. Collector of Central Excise Bombay 1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA suppression of facts can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty when facts were known to both the parties by one to do what he is settled law that mere failure to declare does not amount to willful suppression. Also see C.B.E.&C. letter No. F.No.137/167/2006-CX-4 dated 3.10.07 is also relevant. Decided in favour of assessee.
|