Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2006 (4) TMI 127 - SC - Central ExciseWhether the appellant supplying carbon dioxide to another unit as per agreement dated 19-3-1983 had not taken necessary licence & had not followed the procedure prescribed under the rules and had not discharged duty liability Held that - Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on 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. Thus there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. For the reasons stated above Civil Appeal Nos. 2747 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2003 filed by the assessees are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside on the question of limitation only. The demands raised against them as well as the penalty if any are dropped. Civil Appeals @ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9271-9278 of 2003 filed by the department are dismissed.
|