TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment has not brought any positive act on the part of the appellant which shows suppression of material facts on his part - extended period not invokable - demand for normal period upheld. Matter remanded to the original authority to find out whether the appellants have paid the duty for the normal period in accordance with law or not - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/22765/2014 - 22684/2017 - Dated:- 1-11-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Manoj Pillai, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules. Interest under Section 11AB read with Rule 14 and penalty under Section 11AC read with Rules 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, were also proposed in the notice. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also rejected the said appeal, hence the present apepal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has held as under: Expression Suppression of Fact is to be interpreted strictly because it has been used in company of such strong words as fraud, collusion or wilful default. Extended period of five years is not applicable just for any omission of assessee unless it is deliberate to escape payment of duty . 4.3 Further, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2008 (9) STR 524 has held that when facts and all required details of receipts etc., are mentioned in the Books of Accounts, there is no legal or moral justification to allege the charge of wilful suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax. 4.4 Further, in the case of Bridgstone Vs. CST: 2008 (11) STR 527 , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not brought any positive act on the part of the appellant which shows suppression of material facts on his part. Therefore, by following the ratios of the above said decisions, I am of the view that invoking the extended period in the present case is not legally sustainable and the appellants are only liable to pay duty for the normal period. Therefore, I remand the case back to the original authority to find out whether the appellants have paid the duty for the normal period in accordance with law or not. The original authority before passing the de novo order will follow the principles of natural justice and will pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. (Order was pronounced in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
