9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adings 1701.99 (boora) and 1704.90 (mishri and makhana). Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 6.7.2010 raising duty demand of Rs.59,92,542/- was issued to the appellant for the period July 2008 to 4.12.2008 invoking the extended period of limitation. The adjudicating authority after giving opportunity of being heard to the appellant confirmed the duty demand amounting to Rs.59,92,542/- with interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred this appeal wherein the instant stay application has been moved. 3. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) this appeal has been filed. 4. Heard both the sides. 5. Shri R.K. Hasija, ld. Advocate for the appellant plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2008 invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) on the ground that the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and they had suppressed the relevant facts from the department. On the basis of the same facts the department has issued show cause notice for subsequent period from July 2008 to 4.12.2008 on 6.7.2010 again invoking the extended period, which in view of the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) is not permissible. The relevant observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgement are reproduced as under:- "8. Without going into the question regarding Classification and marketability and leaving the same open, we intend to dispose of the appeals on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar as the assessee is concerned, it has all along been contending that they were not related persons, so, it cannot be said to be guilty of not filling up the declaration in the prescribed proforma indicating related persons. The necessary facts had been brought to the notice of the authorities at different intervals from 1985 to 1988 and further, they had dropped the proceedings accepting that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. It is, therefore, futile to contend that there has been suppression of fact in regard M/s. Pharmachem Distributors being a related person. On that score, we are unable to uphold the invoking of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act for making the demand for the extended period." &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment wanted to take up such contentions it is for them to show that that Show Cause Notice was not relevant and was not applicable. The Department has not brought any of those facts on record. Therefore, the Department cannot now urge that findings of the Collector that that Show Cause Notice was on a similar issue and for an identical amount is not correct." 9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
