Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1252 - HC - Central ExciseInvocation of extended period of limitation by subsequent SCN - three show cause notices for larger period of limitation had been issued already to the appellants in the past for the same cause of dispute - duty demand on income of selling patterns/moulds - all the show cause notices were issued on basis of audit verification of balance sheets only HELD THAT:- It may be pertinent to note that the earlier also show cause notices were issued and same are quashed and set aside and therefore, the reference to intelligence in the impugned show cause notices is of no consequence, since all the said facts were already before the central excise authorities at the time when the earlier show cause notices came to be issued - it cannot be said that the impugned show cause notices are based on new or different facts than the earlier ones. Even the while issuing the present show cause notices, the same and/or similar set of facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. Under the circumstances, the respondents were not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation in respect of earlier periods by issuing the impugned show cause notices, on the plea of suppression of facts by the appellants, as the facts were already in the knowledge of the Department. The controversy involved in the present petition is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AP [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|