Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 383 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (7) TMI 383 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 114 (Mad.) - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts - Held that:- There has been failure on the part of the appellant to discharge the duty liability on clearance in excess of the exempted production. The adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently have come to the clear conclusion that it is a case of suppression and, therefore, this Court finds no reason to differ wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

excess of the exemption limit and, therefore, it is not open to the assessee to plead a case of no suppression. - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. No. 1764 of 2011 - Dated:- 5-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. N.Inbarajan For the Respondents : Mr. K.Mohanamurali, for R-2 JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by it, the appellant/assessee is before this Court by filing the present appeal. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

parts, parts of earth moving equipments, steel tables, chairs, etc. For the period 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the appellant crossed the small scale exemption limit. Once the appellant came to know about the crossing of the small scale exemption limit for the above two years, they voluntarily approached the respondent for payment of duty, which they failed to pay earlier. The Department, verified the same vide various proceedings like recording of statement, etc., dated 11.5.00 and 9.6.00. Thereafter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elevant period, i.e., 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, the noticee is liable to pay duty on the clearance exceeding ₹ 50 Lakhs, the then existing SSI exemption limit. This duty liability is not disputed by the noticee also. In fact in their reply dated 24.03.2003 and as well as during the course of personal hearing on 21.04.2003, the noticee themselves admitted that they are not disputing the demand of duty. 17. So the next question that needs to be decided is whether there are sufficient grounds .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lakhs during the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. In fact, Shri P.N.Selvakumar, Managing Director admitted in his statement dated 09.06.2000 that due to pressure of work, they did not file the necessary declaration with the Central Excise authorities as contemplated in the Central Excise Rules. Once it is admitted that duty liability had arisen on their crossing the exemption limits of ₹ 50 lakhs during 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and the assessee knowingly remained silent, the fact of crossing the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the contravention of the various Central Excise provisions on account of the wilful non-payment of duty had already taken place. 18. Hence I reject the contention of M/s.KRIPA that there had been no suppression with intent to evade payment. It is expected of every assessee to determine and discharge his duty liability once the exemption limit is crossed and the law will not help any one who violates them in utter disregard. 19. Having decided that there is sufficient ground for invoking the ext .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ating their duty liability. Therefore, I reject their request for relief on cash bill sales made during the year 1998-1999." 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the adjudicating authority, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 21.5.2004, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee and held as hereunder :- "The lower authority has held that "In fact Shri P.N.Selvakumar, Managing Director admitted in his s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

these circumstances, I am of the view that the ingredient of suppression of fact is established and the extended period of 5 years for the demand of duty under proviso to Section 11A of the Act is justifiably invoked. The submission made by M/s.KRIPA that they made the voluntary disclosure to the department, i.e., before the departmental officers visited the unit is of no avail, since the contravention of the various Central Excise provisions on account of the wilful non-payment of duty had alr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of no suppression advanced by the appellant/assessee. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal, for better clarity, is extracted hereinbelow :- "5. However, it was incumbent on the appellants to declare to the department as soon as they exceeded the small scale exemption limit of ₹ 50 lakhs, in the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. It was also incumbent on the appellants to discharge duty liability on clearances in excess of the exempted production. There was, therefore, a clear ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand raised in this case is clearly within the statutory limit of five years, though, it is not known why the departmental authorities took more than two and half years to issue the show cause notice. We also note that initially in reply to the show cause notice, the appellants had expressed their readiness to pay the duty amount. 6. Since there has been a suppression regarding the production in excess of the small scale exemption limit, and there has also been non-payment of duty on such clea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant/assessee is before this Court by filing the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Department and perused the materials available on record. 6. The substantial question raised by the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have set aside the demand holding that the extended period of limitation will not arise in its case, has been considered and held by the Tribunal on the plea of suppre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version