TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute this and contended that they are not liable to pay duty as biscuits and other bakery products cannot be treated as excisable products. Thus, despite receipt of the directions from the department, the appellant failed to discharge excise duty liability. Further, the appellant did not submit details sought by the department and continued to drag the issue by prolonged correspondence. In view of the above, suppression of information on the part of the appellant is clearly established - show cause notice is well within the time period of five years and accordingly the demand and interest thereon is sustainable and consequently penalty under Section 11A is also sustainable - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mehta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id demand was confirmed vide final order NO. 14/ADC/CEX/2002 dated 28/03/2002 wherein the duty demand was reduced to ₹ 65,793/- along with interest thereon and also imposing equivalent amount of penalty. The said order was challenged before the lower appellate authority, who after giving the cum-duty benefit reduced the duty demand to ₹ 63,267/- along with interest and also imposing equivalent amount of penalty. It is this order which is under challenge before us. 3. The learned Counsel lay for the appellant submits that the appellant was entertaining a bona fide belief that the goods manufactured by him were not subject to excise duty. It is further submitted that the department was aware of the activities of the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t also did not take registration even after crossing the exemption limit, nor did they file statutory returns or maintain statutory records. The appellant, even after repeated reminders by the department to file the statutory returns failed to file details so that the department could issue the show cause notice. In the absence of submission of details, it has to be held that the appellant had suppressed the facts with intent to evade duty and therefore, invocation of extended period is sustainable in law. Accordingly, he pleads for upholding the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 As regards the plea of bona fide belief taken by the counsel for the appellant, it is settled law t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued, the hotel furnished its reply setting out the details of the work done by the appellant amounting to ₹ 991.66 lakhs and at that stage only the department came to know that the work order was to carry out the job for furniture also. A bare perusal of the records shows that the aforesaid reply was sent by the respondent on receipt of a letter issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise on 27.2.1997. If the period of limitation of five years is computed from the aforesaid date, the show cause notice having been issued on 15.5.2000, the demand made was clearly within the period of limitation as prescribed, which is five years. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, in the present case also, the show cause notice is well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
