Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2008 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 437 - HC - Central ExciseDuty demand under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - invoking extended period of limitation of five years - show cause notice has been issued to the party for the normal period - Held that:- It is settled law, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, (2005 (9) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), that mere failure to declare does not amount to wilful mis-declaration or wilful suppression. There must be some positive act on the part of the party to establish either wilful mis-declaration or wilful suppression. When all facts are before the Department and a party in the belief that affixing of a label makes no difference does not make a declaration, then there would be no wilful mis-declaration or wilful suppression. In the present case, a finding has been recorded by the CESTAT that it cannot be said that there was any wilful suppression or misstatement of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. Hence, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law is arising from the order of the CESTAT.
|