Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 153 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - unbranded chewing tobacco - suppression of facts - period of limitation - Held that: - mere non-payment of duty is not equivalent to collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur [2013 (1) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT]. The burden on the department to prove the malafide of the noticee, the onus is not on the assessee to prove his bonafide. In the present case, we find that the show cause notice did not elaborate the ground on which the demand for extended period was supported. In a similar set of facts this Tribunal in the case of Balaji Products Limited [2016 (11) TMI 406 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] held that there are no sufficient grounds to sustain allegation of willful mis-statement/ suppression of facts. In the said case also the liability of additional duty of excise on unbranded chewing tobacco for the period March, 2005 to March, 2007 was in dispute in connection with demand for extended period. The demand for extended period cannot be sustained - The duty for normal period is liable to be paid - On the same reason, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was also not justified. Accordingly, these penalties are set-aside - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
|