Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2007 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 292 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAMisplacement of records by department- Respondent-Company is engaged in the manufacture of cement and is covered by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department issued a show cause notice. In the show cause notice, the department made reference to the Dip Register for the purpose of suppression of material facts on the part of the Company. The department also considered the said suppression of facts for the purpose of extended limitation in terms of Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act (for short ‘the Act’). After receipt of notice, the respondent submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations made against the Company. Matter was heard. The then Commissioner passed an adverse order relying on the Dip Register for the purpose of suppression and for the suppression of the case on the merits of the matter. An adverse order was passed confirming the show cause notice. Matter was taken to the Tribunal by the assessee. The Tribunal, after hearing has chosen to remand the matter for reconsideration with a further direction to make available the Dip Register to the assessee for the purpose of the say of the assessee in the case on hand. Thereafter, the department did not make available the said Register. But however heard the respondent-Company and once again confirmed the earlier demand. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went for appeal for the second time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has accepted the case of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, the revenue is before us. Held that- . The department has to be careful in maintaining the register as otherwise, there is every chance of public money being lost on account of negligence on the part of the department. The department cannot shirk its responsibility on the ground of mis-placement of the same during the course of shifting of the office building. Appeal stands rejected.
|