9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) falling under Chapter 2704 of CETA, 1985. The Department raised a show-cause cum demand notice dated 21.12.2004 against the respondents for Rs.1,89,248/- on the ground that they have not included the loading and forwarding charges in the assessable value of CPC for the period March, 2001 to November, 2002. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and equal amount of penalty was also imposed under Section 11A of CEA, 1944. The respondents challenged the same. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority on the ground of limitation of time as prescribed under Section 11A of CEA, 1944. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 to Nov. 02, whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 21.12.04, i.e. beyond the time limitk prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. However, the lower authority has invoked the provisions of extended period under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act as the duty on the loading and forwarding charges has not been paid by them by reasons of willful mis-declaration of assessable value in their monthly returns and invoices during the period of short levy of duty by reasons of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. On perusal of the show cause notice, I find the detection was made while verifying the monthly returns like RT-12/ER-1, submitted by them. It is not denied that the appellant was filing month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtended period by the lower authority cannot be upheld as per the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Pushpam Forging reported in 2006 (193) ELT 334. Above all, the demand relates to the period from March 01 to Nov. 02 and the show cause notice should have been issued within one year of the date of filing of the returns and hence the department s attempt to invoke the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A to avail the benefit of extended period is not warranted. The principles laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Tamilnadu Housing Board s case reported in 1994 (74) ELT-9, in the case of Chemphar Drugs and Liniments reported in 1989 (40) ELT 276, in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical reported in 1995 (75) ELT 721 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
