TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take note that in re Dee Kay Exports [ 2010 (10) TMI 473 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ] the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana held that once the matter has been finalised on merits, the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in the same matter without a provision to that effect in the Act. The subjecting of an assessee to repeated proceedings under section 11A is not the intent of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - EXCISE APPEAL NO: 1583 of 2011, 1584 of 2011, 1585 of 2011 - A/86550-86552/2019 - Dated:- 4-9-2019 - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE DR SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Prakash Shah with Shri Mihir Mehta, Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion or manufacture of such goods. was computed on the basis of costs (unaudited balance sheet) with differential duty, if any, made good when the final accounts (as audited) are available. It was further contended that during the disputed period of 2004-05 to 2007-08, cost of production as certified by cost accountant, was furnished to Joint Director (Cost), Central Excise Commissionerate, Mumbai III on 11th September 2006 for the first two years and, thereafter, on 3rd March 2008 and 1st April 2009 for the other two years. Tracing the developments, he informs that three show cause notices for demand of ₹ 1,13,37,413 (April June 2006), ₹ 1,15,70,647 (July October 2006) and ₹ 1,23,11,546 (November 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by the adjudicating authority and that the costs had been wrongly inflated to sustain the demand. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Dee Kay Exports v. Union of India [2011 (264) ELT 366 (P H)] and Paro Food Products v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2005 (184) ELT 50 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 6. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative at length. It is submitted by him that the procedure adopted by the appellant for discharge of liability on clearances was patently incorrect and that the present claims of the appellant remained unverified. 7. On the claim of the appellant that show cause notice covers the same period as those issued ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner s order, the Revenue has gone in appeal which is yet to be decided. Under these circumstances, we strongly feel that there is no point in the Commissioner initiating a second proceedings for the same period and for the same amount invoking longer period. There is no suppression of facts. So, longer period is ruled out. In that case, the demand is time barred. We also hold that the principle of res judicata is applicable. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam Ors. [AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1150 (V 52 C ISI)] has held that in a case where assessment to sales tax for particular year challenged on some grounds by writ petition which was dismissed on merits, subsequent writ petition challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
