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

2015 (9) TMI 408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 117 (Bom.) - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tral Excise Appeal No. 143 OF 2005 - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - S.C. Dharmadhikari & 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lleging suppression is for period for Nov. 1992 to Jan. 1996 whereas the 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 i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty thereon for the period November 1992 to January 1996 under proviso 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, therefo .....

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