TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order, the CEGAT also held that the removal of goods and payment of duty took place between July 1995 to March 1996. The assessee had paid differential duty as worked out by them also in November 1996. In these circumstances, there is no factual basis to the allegation that the assessee suppressed any material facts. Show-cause notice dated 1-6-2000 was issued almost four years after the payment of the differential duty by the assessee, well beyond the normal period allowed for duty demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act'). Demand of duty for longer period up to 5 years is permissible only if the short levy of duty is on account of suppression, mis-declaration of facts, fraud etc. as provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EGAT who held that the demand was barred by time as the period of assessment was between July 1995 to March 1996 and payment of differential duty was made on 28-11-1996 of Rs. 67,88,027/-. 3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the exemption was claimed under the relevant sales tax laws but there was collection of sales tax as was admitted by the accountant on 26-10-1999. The assessee also admitted about the collection on 10-11-1999. The amount collected was Rs. 2,37,58,095/-. It has been fairly accepted by the assessee that there was no intimation given about the sales tax exemption or the deposit made to the range officer or any other authority. 4. It has been categorically found by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed department no Central Excise duty would have been leviable thereon." 5. It is to be noted that the assessee submitted that the sales tax authorities denied the exemption and the matter was pending before the High Court. The deposit was made as there was a dispute. To a query made as to why the deposit was made even there was nothing payable as claimed, the reply was that it was paid due to pressure. There was no averment made at any stage taking such a plea. 6. The extended period of limitation is applicable as (a) no information was given regarding deposit and (b) no information was given about the alleged claim of exemption and the calculation. 7. In the aforesaid background, the CEGAT presently known as Customs, Excise and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
