TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved is August 2003 to November 2003, the show cause notice was issued on 9.9.2004. In this fact the suppression of fact cannot be attributed to the appellant, accordingly the proviso of Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked - the extended period is not sustainable and demand for the normal period of one year as provided under Section 11A(1) of the Act shall sustain - For the same reason that there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant the penalty under Section 11AC is also not imposable accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/1401/06 - A/87562/17/EB - Dated:- 30-5-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Shri Raju, Member (Technic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhiana Vs. Neel Kanth Rubber Mills 2010 (254) E.L.T. 203 (P H) (iv) Mohan Breweries Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. Pondicherry 2015 (325) E.L.T.42 (Mad.) (v) Commissioner of C. Ex. Customs, Surat-II Vs. MTZ Polyfilms Limited 2010 (256) E.L.T. 539 (Guj.) (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. DCW Ltd. 2005 (192) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Chennai) (vii) Soorajmull Baijnath Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. , Delhi-III 2008 (232) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Del.) 3. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) Mohan Breweries Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Commr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Cus. is not admissible. However as regard the submission on limitation and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, we agree with the submission of Ld. Counsel that the issue was contentious and was referred to the Larger Bench and decided on 16.8.2004, whereas in the present case the period involved is August 2003 to November 2003, the show cause notice was issued on 9.9.2004. In this fact the suppression of fact cannot be attributed to the appellant, accordingly the proviso of Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the demand for the extended period is not sustainable and demand for the normal period of one year as provided under Section 11A(1) of the Act shall sustain. For the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
