TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant declarations there was no suppression of the facts. We find that no question as such was raised making an issue that findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and based on no material. No material as such was placed before us to take a contra view. It is well-settled that the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and the High Court is required to accept the findings recorded by the Tribunal except where there is a specific challenge to the findings raising any questions of perversity supported by relevant material. Hence, we see no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed the Tribunal. - Decided against Revenue. - C.E.A. No. 12 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - G. Chandraiah And Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal filed by the department on a point of law said to have been raised at that stage without appreciating the fact that it is already adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority and without considering the grounds on the basis of which the appeal was filed before the Tribunal? iv) Whether allowing exemption to certain goods under a notification merely under the presumption that the benefit of the notification is to be read with reference to the legislative intention behind it, irrespective of the fact that the said goods are not covered by the list annexed to the said notification which is a mandatory requirement for allowing the exemption, is correct or not? v) Whether the exemption from payment of duty can be granted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the impugned Final Order dated 28.06.2005, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the original demand is time-barred. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has instituted the present appeal. The learned Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise appearing for the appellant has submitted that as mandated in proviso to Section 11A of the Act, the statutory authority issued show cause notice to the assessee beyond the period of one year only on finding that the assessee suppressed material facts. The Tribunal ought to have considered material on record and ought not to have decided the appeal only on question of limitation without adverting to other issues raised. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words one year, the words five years were substituted. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 22.04.2003 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the date of clearance of excisable goods invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act, and the extended period of five years was made applicable. Extended period would apply only in cases where there is suppression of material facts, collusion or any willful mis-statement, etc. made by the assessee. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
