9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant Revenue has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CESTAT, Ahmedabad dated 27th December 2013 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent who had in turn challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Daman. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present Appeal are as under : It was found in the audit that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal. 3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that though a limitation of one years is provided under Section 28 for taking the action, no such limitation is provided under sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Customs Act. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the show cause notices were beyond limitation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions, then an action has to be taken within a reasonable period and such reasonable period would very much vary from six months to five years. While holding so, the learned CESTAT has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 (SC). The Apex Court in the said case has in unequivocal terms held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be clearly seen that insofar as there is a delay of more than three years from the date on which the first cause of action arose and more than two years from the date on which the last cause of action arose. The delay has not at all been explained. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal was unjustified in holding that the delay in issuing show cause notice was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
