New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous

Determination of relevant date for raising Demand u/s 11A of Central Excise and u/s 73 of Service Tax - Relevant Date is the date of knowledge of the department or is the date as prescribed in the statute

Central Excise - By: - CA Surender Gupta - Dated:- 29-7-2015 Last Replied Date:- 30-7-2015 - Hon'ble Supreme Court while confirmed the demand in the case of, Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Versus M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2011 (8) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] , has observed that: since there was clandestine removal of excisable goods, the period of limitation in the present case would have to be computed from the date of their knowledge, arrived at upon raid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

39;ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], while interpreting the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, held that since there was a clandestine removal of excisable goods, the period of limitation in the case would have to be computed from the date of their knowledge. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta & Co. [2011 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. In the prese .....

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 proprietors and they admitted the clandestine clearance of the goods without payment of duty and thereafter the show cause notices were issued within five years hence the ratio of the above decisions relied upon by the Revenue are fully applicable on the facts of the present case. As the appellants are not disputing the demands on merits before the adjudicating authority nor in the present appeals, therefore we find no merit in the contention of the appellants that the demands are time barr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or are in any way affected or taken away. It is only when recovery is contemplated in terms of the statute that the adherence to the statutory provision is mandated. Once this conclusion is reached, then, we find that even the Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakhapatnam vs. Mehta and Co. reported in 2011 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA will not be carrying the case any further. There, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India found that the department discovered the fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#39;s order is ex-facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is vitiated by complete non application of mind as well. That the fraud is of great magnitude and that involvement or the act is admitted does not mean that recovery of duty because of such fraud or as a result of it can be made at any time under Section 11A . This was clearly lost sight of by the Tribunal. Though the Hon'ble high court has interpreted the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the decision of .....

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