Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1274 - AT - Central ExciseArea based exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - Self assessment scheme - demand raised by invoking Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Under self-assessment scheme, duty is cast on the assessee to properly assess the goods for payment of duties leviable thereon. Admittedly the appellants were filing requisite returns showing the amount of excise duty or additional excise duty and claimed the exemption of the same in terms of the Notification. Non-mention of NCCD in the said returns should have raised the eyebrows of the jurisdictional officers and they should have advised the assessee at that point of time itself that NCCD is required to be paid by them. The fact of non-payment of NCCD was writ clear on the said returns, in which case the observations of the appellate authority that the appellant never approached the Revenue by seeking clarification on payment of NCCD cannot be appreciated. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of C.Ex., Bombay [1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has observed that extended period is not applicable just for any omission of assessee unless it is deliberate to escape from payment of duty. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that expression “suppression of facts” in proviso to section 11A(1) is to be interpreted strictly because it has been used in company of such strong words as fraud, collusion or willful default etc., where facts are known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done does not render it suppression of facts. Inasmuch as the entire facts were being placed before the Revenue, by way of filing returns and inasmuch as the Revenue was aware of the fact of non-payment of NCCD, it cannot be said that there was any mala fide suppression or mis-statement on the part of the appellant so as to evade payment of duty - the extended period was not available to the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|