Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V Versus PHENOWELD POLYMERS PVT. LTD.

2015 (9) TMI 408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts - Held that:- Once the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation raises a mixed question of fact and law, then the Tribunal found and on facts that assuming the larger period could have been invoked the Revenue / Department was aware that the assessee sold the goods from the depot piece meal. Once the Revenue was so aware and as found by the Tribunal on facts, then, the extended period could not have been invoked and a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ikari & S.P. Deshmukh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Rao with Mr. S.D. Bhosale For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Ansurkar with Mr. D.H. Nadkarni and Mr. C.S. Biradar I/b M/s. Legal Solutions ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.] 1. This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai dated 8th June, 2005. The appeal has been admitted on three substantial questions of law which read as under : W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he show cause notices issued earlier were for the period Feb. 1996 and onwards ? Whether the Hon'ble tribunal was justified in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ECE Indl. Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2004 (164) ELT 236 (SC) which is distinguishable to the facts of the present case ? 2. The Revenue issued a show cause-cum-demand notice to the respondent-assessee demanding excise duty interest and imposing penalty. An order-in-original was passed on 5th February, 1999 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to section 11A should not be recovered. 3. The contention essentially before us is that though suppression was noticed by the Revenue, the three show cause notices dated 11th September, 1996 for the period February 1996, show cause notice dated 4th October, 1996 for the period March 1996 to July 1996 and show cause notice dated 3rd March,1997 for the period August 1996 to September, 1996 did not allege suppression and, therefore, the larger period was not invoked. In the subject show cause notic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version