9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Adv JUDGEMENT:- PER : Barin Ghosh A declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules was filed by the appellant with effect from 5th April, 1994 in respect of goods having two descriptions. The first was pipes and tubes with market buyers brand name and the second was pipes and tubes with own brand/unbranded. There is no dispute that so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and succeeded, inasmuch as, the first Appellate Authority felt that everything was within the knowledge of the revenue and, accordingly, question of extending time beyond one year by invoking Section 11A of the Act did not arise. Revenue went before the Tribunal. Despite several notices, appellant did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the original declaration itself was a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, a market practice or not. It was contended that RT-12 returns did indicate in detail what quantum of branded materials were supplied and who received those supplies. It was contended that the RT-12 returns also depicted how much of own brand/unbranded materials were cleared and to whom those were sold. It was contended that if there was any doubt, as regards the particulars furnished in RT-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods have all been regularly approved by the Department". In that background, all facts were within the knowledge of the Department and, accordingly, there was no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. In the instant case, the Tribunal has opined that the very declaration filed with effect from 5th April, 1994 was a false declaration. The basic reason thereof is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
