TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal No. 404 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2012 - V.M. Sahai and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. Shri Darshan M. Parikh, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The Department has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order dated 24-11-2011 [2012 (278) E.L.T. 321 (T)] of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch, Ahmedabad, in Appeal No. E/333/2006 by proposing the following question as substantial question of law. Whether the CESTAT was right in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the amount deposited by the assessee during the pendency of the investigation cannot be said to have been paid by them voluntarily towards t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty, which was further revised to Rs. 14,59,379/- in the subsequent communications. After some further communication and computation, the Joint Commissioner (Central Excise) issued show cause cum-demand notice dated 10-9-2004 pointing out therein differential duty amounting to Rs. 14,48,878/- as short levied and payable in respect of finished goods in DTA during the period from 16-9-1999 to August, 2002. In the show cause notice, the work sheet was prepared and the duty, penalty and interest were claimed. 3.2 After the aforesaid show cause notice, the Joint Commissioner issued a corrigendum dated 17-6-2005 wherein the portion of show cause notice regarding short levy was substituted and it was stated that instead of Rs. 14,48,878/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire demand as barred by limitation. 4. The Tribunal in its impugned order extensively quoted from the order of the adjudicating authority. Certain parts of the relevant observation and findings in the OIO, are extracted herein below. Therefore, the question of suppression of facts or misdeclaration with an intention to evade duty in baseless as not borne on any tangible evidences rather there is not averment or any material which can create any doubt on bona fide of the assessee s action. Therefore, the notice issued on 10th September, 2004 as well as corrigendum dated 7th June, 2005 and 28th July, 2005 were without any authority of law and are held to be not justified. Thus, the total sum of Rs. 10,34,098/- was honoured by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper sustainable and maintainable. They do not deserve any refund neither on merit nor on limitation. However, jacking them with further liabilities after limitation period is over, is not justified and cannot be maintained and sustained. Therefore, the proceedings started by issuance of show cause notice dated 10-9-2004 and tried to be fortified or enhanced by corrigendum are held to be inappropriate and illegal. Thus, demands and other proposed cause of actions are barred by limitation as provided under provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. After considering the facts and the findings of the adjudicating authority, the Tribunal arrived at its own conclusion as under. It can be seen from the above reproduced fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
