TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase it cannot be said that appellants had suppressed the facts or deliberately mis-declared to evade payment of duty and in our opinion no case has been made out for invoking extended period. In the absence of case for invoking extended period, the demand for the period beyond the normal period of limitation cannot be sustained. Since the issue falls within a narrow compass and the issue is no longer res integra, we do not consider it appropriate to postpone the matter for final hearing and grant stay at this stage - relied upon the decision in the case of J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others [1987 (10) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/20639/2014, E/20640/2014, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said activity as an activity not amounting to manufacture and hence, no duty is paid on the spare parts and further no credit is availed or passed on to the customers in respect of those spares/parts. Further all the spare parts are cleared to the industrial and institutional consumers only. 2. Investigation was taken up and appellant s premises were visited and statements were recorded from the 3 employees of the appellant who are in appeal before us. The appellants furnished all the details required and there was correspondence between the appellants and the investigating agency of the Revenue. Further the appellants for the normal period also paid an amount of ₹ 44 crores towards central excise duty for the period from 01.04.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 29 to 33 and 35-36 and the same are reproduced below: 29. It is not disputed that the Legislature is competent to make laws both prospectively and retrospectively. But, as pointed out by this Court in Jawaharmal V. State of Rajasthan and Others, (1966) 1 S.C.R. 890, the cases may conceivably occur where the court may have to consider the question as to whether excessive retrospective operation prescribed by a taxing statute amounts to the contravention of the citizens fundamental rights; and in dealing with such a question the court may have to take into account all the relevant and surrounding facts and circumstances in relation to the taxation. Again in Rai Ramkrishna and Others V. State of Bihar, (1964) 1 S.C.R. 897 this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay the amount specified in the notice: Provided that where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words six months , the words five years were substituted. Explanation - Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of six months or five years, as the case may be. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin it demand for more than six months, must be made within a period of six months from the date of the amendment. 33. There is no provision in the Act or in the Rules enabling the Excise authorities to make any demand beyond the periods mentioned in Section 11A of the Act on the ground of the accrual of cause of action. The question that is really involved is whether in view of Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982, Section 11A should be ignored or not. In our view Section 51 does not, in any manner, affect the provision of Section 11A of the Act. In the absence of any specific provision overriding Section 11A, it will be consistent with rules of harmonious construction to hold that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 insofar as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Attractive though the argument is, we regret we are unable to accept the same. It is true that the Explanation to Section 51 has not mentioned anything about the penalties and confiscation of goods, but we do not think that in view of such non-mention in the Explanation excluding imposition of penalties for acts or omissions before amendment, such penalties can be imposed or goods can be confiscated by virtue of the amended provision of Rules 9 and 49. It will be against all principles of legal jurisprudence to impose a penalty on a person or to confiscate his goods for an act or omission which was lawful at the time when such act was performed or omission made, but subsequently made unlawful by virtue of any provision of law. The conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
