TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Case No.317/05. 2. In short the question that is involved and sought to be raised rather reiterated by the Assessee in this appeal is whether demand and duty of Rs. 8.5 lakh raised by Revenue on the Assessee for the period August 1995 to September 1996 by invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act/Rule is legally justified on facts of this case or not? The Tribunal by impugned order has upheld the demand holding that it was rightly raised on facts which are found proved. 3. This is how the Tribunal in paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order held while upholding the demand in question; "3. The learned SDR contended that the short levy has taken place be cause of the mis-statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, we find no merit in this appeal. 6. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal quoted supra, does not call for any interference as the same is in accord with the legal provisions applicable to the facts of the case and also is in accord with judicial precedents governing the field. 7. In our view, it is a clear case of misstatement of facts disclosed by Assessee at the time of declaration for obtaining exemption on the goods and later not adhering to the same while actually manufacturing and clearing the goods for sale. In other words, it was a case where under the garb of exemption obtained by Assessee by making false statement, they were selling the product which were not exempted from payment of excise duty. They were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this issue by the Tribunal. Fourthly, this court cannot entertain this type of factual argument for the first time as last court of appeal which is required to be heard and decided only on issue of law rather than on facts and that too for the first time. In the second place, learned counsel placing reliance on decisions reported in SCCL-Sarabhai M. Chemicals v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara -2005 (179) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); SCCL-Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs Liniments - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (SC); SCCL-Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.), SCCL Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
