Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 340 - CESTAT CHENNAIValuation - goods sold to Holding company - time limitation - whether the aspect of applicability or otherwise of extended period of limitation has been sufficiently dealt with by the lower appellate authority? - Held that: - From a plain reading of the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is clear that mandatory penalty equal to the duty determined is imposable when duty of excise has not been levied or paid put forward by reasons of fraud, collusion or any mis-statement or suppression of facts etc., with intention to evade payment of duty - No doubt, the original authority, while justifying invokation of extended period, has observed that there is suppression on the part of the assesse. But, we are unable to fathom how in spite of such an observation, he has chosen not to impose penalty under Section 11 AC. When the original authority has chosen not to impose penalty under Section 11 AC, impliedly he has also not found any elements of fraud, collusion, suppression or mis-statement in the conduct of the assessee. When no such contumacious conduct is found, there can be no justification for invocation of extended period of limitation provided under Section 11 A (1) ibid - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|