TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of appellant. - E/40/2008 - 1343/2008 - Dated:- 13-10-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Shri T.K. Jayaraman, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 52/2007-C.E., dated 30-8-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. Shri K. S. Ravi Shankar, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mrs. Joy Kumari Chander, learned Joint CDR represented the department. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs, which are excisable. They cleared certain goods to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be intent to evade duty - Larger period of limitation not sustainable in the absence of intent to evade. 2. Super Forgings Steel Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 153 (T). This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T. A151 (S.C.) Transfer of goods from one unit to another - Held, even if valuation was adopted on the lower side at the time of clearance from Dankuni Factory, it does not lead to any gain to company - Demand for larger period of limitation and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable. 3. MRF Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 69 (T) Duty demand on the ground that intermediate products cleared to ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in not taking licence or not paying duty was not sufficient to invoke the extended period. 6. Cosmic Dye Chemical v. CCE - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.) Held, intent to evade duty must be proved for invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for extended period of limitation - It is not correct to say that there can be suppression or misstatement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitutes a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11A. Misstatement or suppression of fact must be wilful. 4.2 It was also submitted that all the facts were within the knowledge of the department. Therefore, there was no suppression and longer period could not have been in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
