9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 11A(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944, when the party has suppressed the material fact of production and clearance of excisable goods from the department and contravened the provisions contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the rules made there under and the relevant notifications with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty;" 2. Facts leading to filing of the instant appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), are as under:- (a) M/s. Deyam Industries, the assessee herein, is engaged in the business of manufacture of electrical goods. It has set up its Unit at Nalagarh, an industrial estate established by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, within the territori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 84,81,935/- (Eighty Four Lakhs eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred & thirty Five only) on the Noticees under Section 11AC of the Act." 4. Assailing the same, assessee preferred an appeal which stands decided in its favour by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, vide order dated 13.07.2015, in case titled as M/S Deyam Industry Versus CCE & ST, Chandigarh. Noticeably, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order so impugned before it for the reason that action initiated by the revenue was beyond the period of limitation and no ground for invoking the extended period was made out by the revenue, making the case fall within the exceptions carved out for taking appropriate action, beyond the prescribed period of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee within the period of one year from the relevant date. What is that relevant date in the given facts and circumstances, is not in dispute, for it is the date on which the goods were cleared, i.e. date of clearance of goods/filing of monthly returns. Both events incidentally fall within the same month, which in the instant case, was February, 2008. We clarify that such fact is not disputed by anyone of the parties before us. It is also a matter of record that in July, 2009 itself, the assessee had apprised the department of revenue, by way of a declaration, as envisaged under the Act/Rules/ Regulations, indicating its intent of taking benefit of Notification dated 10.06.2003. 7. Thus far, it is clear that assessee had made evident its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the accompanying words, such as fraud, collusion or willful default. Further, "the acts so as to constitute anyone of the exceptions must be deliberate and that in taxation, it can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape from payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression." 12. It is under these circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with and set aside order dated 13.07.2015, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Also the question of law sought to be answered is well settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
