Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 388 - AT - Central ExciseInvocation of extended period for raising demand – Penalty – Ratio decidendi - Manufacturing activity came to knowledge of department when a statement of the appellant’s legal and fiscal advisor was recorded on 2-9-87 - A show cause notice was thereafter issued on 10-2-89 seeking to demand duty - notice was issued within 16 to 17 months of the date of recording of 1st statement which appears to be more than reasonable - It has to be taken that all facts became known to the department only when this show cause notice was issued in February 89 giving margin for drafting of show cause notice and its process and approval from the Commissioner. – Contention of appellant that larger period not invocable after date of knowledge of revenue on 2.9.87 and SCN should have been issued within normal period of limitation only thereafter, is not sustainable - We therefore hold that the extended period has been rightly invoked - Regarding their plea that principle of natural justice has not been followed as co-noticees were not heard together we do find that The appellants have never asked for the same.- demand is sustainable – since in so many case laws it has been held that Goods manufactured for execution of work contract, will be dutiable, plea of bonafide belief is not acceptable – penalty is imposable - A decision is an authority for what decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the back ground of the facts of that case. A case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it. Even a difference in one fact can make a world of difference and the outcome may be totally different. An opinion of the court on any issue, not necessary for deciding the dispute, cannot be considered as ratio of that case. Ratio decidendi is a rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstance of a case and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar.
|