9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are said to have been manufactured at the site of the customers by the assessee i.e. M/s. Kaishar Intriers Pvt. Ltd. The ld. DR has raised a point that both the authorities below have not discussed the issue involved in the matter and simply dropped the demand on the point of limitation as the show cause notice was issued beyond a period of six months invoking the provisions under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act and there is no clear finding by the authorities concerned about the bar of limitation. As such, the matter needs to be remanded back for fresh disposal. 3. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai. The Additional Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e essential for invoking the provisions of Section 11A(1). Wherever proviso is required to be invoked, these essential ingredients of this proviso are required to be brought in the SCN explicitly. In the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay supra, it was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere suppression to disclose the correct information is not a suppression of fact, unless it was deliberate escape from payment of duty. From the above judgments delivered by the Hon'ble SC, it is very clear that where demand is raised for the period of 5 years, under the proviso to Section 11A(1) and it is the responsibility of the department to adduce the evidence or at least allege in the SCN that the party has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the grounds in appeal, rejoinder filed by the Respondent and the position of law on limitation. It is evident from the facts on record that no basis is established to allege any wilful suppression of information from the department with intention to evade payment of duty. The liability to duties on wood work activities conducted at the site on contractual basis was only clarified by the CBEC in the year 1997. Prior to this it can be accepted that there was a general understanding in the trade that the said activity did not attract Central Excise duties. Therefore, appellant not having obtained Central Excise licence and not following the procedures prescribed in Central Excise law in the year 1994-95 can only be construed as a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
