TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had neither concealed nor suppressed any fact in this regard. There is no evidence or allegation by the revenue that the assessee ever concealed or suppressed the facts that the principal manufacturer/s had not discharged the duty liability. It appears it was a matter for the revenue to have addressed and made proper verification/s with regard to the conduct of the principal manufacturer/s at the relevant time. That having not been done, the assessee cannot be subjected to recovery by invoking extended period of limitation in absence of suppression or concealment - appeal dismissed. - Central Excise Appeal No. 107 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2017 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. For the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, i.e. the liability referable to the normal period of limitation, the Tribunal has upheld the demand. The assessee has accepted that part of the order. In respect of extended period of limitation, it is not disputed that the assessee was a job worker engaged by two principal manufacturer/s located in the State of Himanchal Pradesh. It is further admitted to the revenue that under the notification no.214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 in case such as that of the present assessee, the liability for payment of central excise duty though principally fixed on the job worker to be discharged at the time of making clearance, that condition stood relaxed by the aforesaid notification subject to a declaration being submitted by the principal manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no dispute as to the same. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has found that the duty liability being enforced against the assessee in the case of M/s Amargun Overseas Ltd. and in case of M/s PICL by invoking extended period of limitation is barred as there was no suppression or concealment of fact by the assessee. The Tribunal has taken note of the declaration made by the principal manufacturer/s above named and the inspection made by the audit team of revenue to reason that there was no suppression or concealment of facts practiced by the assessee. The fact that principal manufacturer/s did not honour the undertaking given by the department and thus they did not discharge the duty liability cannot be cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
