TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred by limitation - Decided in favour of the assessee - E/2724/2006 - A/992/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 20-5-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. Shri Anand Nainawati, Adv. for Assessee. Shri R.Srova, JDR for the Revenue. Per: Dr. P. Babu: The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Ahmedabad (No.91/2006(Ahd-I), dt.31.5.06. The facts of the case are that M/s Mercantile and Industrial Development Co., Ahmedabad (M/s MIDCO) was issued a Show Cause Notice dt.15.2.05 invoking the larger period under Section 114A for recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs.17,24,407/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs, Twenty Four Thousands, Four Hundred, Seven and Paise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued as late as on 15.2.05 for demanding duty pertaining to since 2000-2001. They have heavily relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collr.of Andhra Pradesh in C.A. No.2747 of 2001 and also in the case of Collr.C.E. Vs. Chemphar Drugs Liniments 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC). 2. We find that the department s appeal is restricted only to the issue of limitation and the merits of the case were not the subject matter for discussion in the appeal nor any reference made. We, therefore, examine only the question of limitation on the basis of various facts, evidences and the case-laws on this issue. It is an admitted fact that the Show Cause Notice was issued only on 15.2.05 demanding dues from 2000-2001 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability, before the period of six months. Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the facts referred to hereinbefore do not warrant any inference of fraud. The assessee declared the goods on the basis of their belief of the interpretation of the provisions of the law that the exempted goods were not required to be includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaration etc at the material time. Veritably, in this case also, respondents were filing all periodical returns and submitted documents to the audit. 6. We also observe that calling for certain records, copies of invoices, etc were brought in effect vide Notification No.17/2005 dt.31.3.05 which mentions that for the earlier period, there was no bar not to call for copies of such documents. It is significant that when the audit report was made available, submission of copies of invoices was not mandatory. When the audit report was available as early as in July 2002 and there was no convenience forthcoming reasons for delay in issuance of Show Cause Notice till 4.5.06, the justification for invoking of provisions of Section 11A cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
