Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 436 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - MODVAT Credit - Manufacturer of the Bisleri Branded Mineral Water - Bar of limitation - Whether the demand in question is required to be held as bared by limitation or the Revenue was justified in invoking the longer period of limitation - Difference opinion - Majority order - Held that:- as such the product having emerged as a semi-finished goods cannot be held to be an excisable commodity so as to attract any duty of excise. They cannot be said to be hit by paras 4 and 5 of Notification No. 88/99, dated 1-3-1999. For adopting the longer period, Revenue has to allege and prove that there was positive suppression and mis-statement on the part of the assessee with an intention to evade payment of dues. The above proposition does require support of any precedent decision - the fact that others were paying duty also cannot be made a ground for alleging suppression to the appellant. It is well settled that for invocation of longer period, the suppression or mis-statement with an intent to evade payment of duty has to be alleged and proved towards the assessee by independent evidence relatable to him and not on the ground that others were paying the duty. As such, I am of the view that the demand is hit by limitation as there is no evidence to the effect that the appellants knowingly indulged in non-payment of duty - Decided in favour of assessee.
|