TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ischarged, it can certainly support a plea of want of intent to evade. All that occurred is that this neutrality has been cited to demonstrate the indifference to the different modes of assessment. Intent to evade duty is not a fruit of indifference but of active obfuscation. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1163/09 - A/86605/2018 - Dated:- 5-6-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Suptd (AR) for the appellant Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Appeal of Revenue against order-in-appeal no. AGS (184) 72/090 dated 11th August 2009 of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad is limited to the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to resort to rule 7 of the said Rules when the final value to be recovered is not known at the time of clearance. Admittedly, the respondent did not seek provisional assessment but paid the differential duty as soon as the liability was made known. Before the lower authorities, they pleaded that there was no intent to evade duty as is evident from payment thereof and their not having gained any advantage by not following the provisions of rule 7 of the said Rules entailing them to discharge of the differential duty on annual basis. 5. Learned Authorized Representative contends that entitlement to credit by the receiving unit does not condone the responsibility to resort to provisional assessment and discharge of duty differential at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich are explained by him and recorded above. It is stated at the cost of repetition that when the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade the duty. 10. Therefore, it was not permissible for the respondent to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act and apply the extended period of limitation. In view thereof, we confirm the demand insofar as it pertains to show cause notice dated 25-2-2000. However, as far as show cause notice dated 3-3-2001 is concerned, the demand from February, 1996 till February, 2000 would be beyond limitation and that part of the demand is hereby set aside. Once we have found that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant, we set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
