9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority. The Assistant Commissioner , Jaipur by his order dated 6.7.2004 had confirmed the demand of duty to the tune of Rs.1,10,554/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty against the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said order on the ground that the Department invoked the period of limitation without disclosing in the show cause notice, the ground on which the extended period of limitation was invoked. 2. Upon hearing the DR for the appellant and the Advocate for the respondents and taking into account the rival contentions, the only issue which arises in the matter is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent period raised under normal limitation and demand for earlier period raised subsequently suppression of facts by appellants alleged by department Demand in respect of a subsequent period when raised by department parallel proceedings could have been initiated for a previous period also Extended period for limitation not invokable Demand hit by limitation Section 11A of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and in case of Collado Beverages Ltd. and others vs. C.C.E, New Delhi reported in 2004 (60) RLT 647 (CEGAT-Del), the CEGAT held that Limitation Demand Section 11A of CEA, 1944 extended time limit not invokable as Deptt. was aware of the fact of the second appellant being the holding company of the first appellant who was making major p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arently, therefore, the extended period of limitation was sought to be invoked on the ground that there was suppression of facts with intention to evade duty. Commissioner (Appeals) does not appear to have taken note of this important aspect while deciding the appeal and merely on the basis of M/s Neyveli Lighting Corp. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.- 1992 (58) ELT 76, Collado Beverages Ltd. and others vs. C.C.E, New Delhi reported in 2004 (60) RLT 647 (CEGAT-Del) and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (60) RLT F -5, the appeal was allowed by rejecting to the arguments which were sought to be advanced on behalf of the respondents. It was absolutely necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to ascertain whether the arguments are born ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
