TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 Act - Therefore, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed. - 4229 OF 2003 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2011 - DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R DAVE, JJ. Harish Chandra, Ms. Aruna Gupta, B.K. Prasad and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Appellant. Jay Savla, Sumit Ghosh and Ms. Renuka Sahu for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-7-2002 passed by CEGAT allowing the appeal of the respondent holding that the extended period of limitation was not available to the department. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 2. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3. The assessee manufactured the product Jaljira powde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal or evasion of Central Excise Duty and, therefore, the respondent is liable for duty. On appeal being filed, the Tribunal, however, set aside the aforesaid order holding that the extended period of limitation is not available by passing the impugned judgment and order, as against which the present appeal is filed. 6. From 1994 to 1999, the respondent has been regularly filing their classification list with the department and the same have been approved by the department over the years. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the decision of this Court in the case of Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. CCE 2005 (188) ELT 149 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. We may refer to paragraph 26 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strictly, it does not mean any omission and the act must be deliberate and wilful to evade payment of duty. The Court, further, held:- 'In taxation, it ("suppression of facts") can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression.'" 7. We may also refer to another decision of this Court in O.K. Play (India) Ltd. v. CCE [2005] 2 SCC 460 wherein in paragraph 38 of the said judgment, this Court has held thus:- "We do not find any merit in these arguments. Nothing prevented the Department from calling upon the assessee over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
