Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 94 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of Differential duty - suppression of facts - Invocation of extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - Held that:- The Range Superintendent was very well aware of the variation between the commercial invoice and the excise invoice. Therefore, the records clearly confirms that demand is hit by limitation. The adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority in spite of the direction issued by Tribunal in the final order dt. 10.9.99 has not discussed on the issue of limitation and not made out a case of suppression of facts against appellant. In this context, we find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs CCE Bhubaneswar (2008 (8) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) clearly held that demand is hit by limitation and extended period cannot be invoked and there is no suppression of facts established by department. - show cause notice involved in the present demand for the period 1994-97 was issued on 6.8.1998 only demanding differential duty for the period March 1994-95 to March 1996-97. There is no suppression of facts by the appellant. By respectfully following the Supreme Court decision (supra), we hold that demand is hit by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|