2016 (2) TMI 999

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S.K. Mohanty : Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 26.03.2013, whereby the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi has dropped the adjudged demand, holding that the extended period is not invocable against the respondent herein. 2. Shri G.R. Singh, ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that the observations of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n recorded by the original authority with regard to the role of the respondent in committing the fraud; thus, the extended period of limitation is not invocable in this case. He further submitted that fraud, if any, was committed by the agents and not by the respondents. Thus, accordingly to the ld. counsel, since upon proper appreciation of facts of the case, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) exoner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d CHA, who has defaulted the Govt. exchequer without the knowledge of connivance of the respondent, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any fraud. He further held that there was nothing available on record to suggest that the CHA has committed the fraud on the suggestion of the Director of the respondent. With the above observation, it has been held that confiscation of goods and i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X