TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original SCN and the corrigendum issued six years later on 19th January 2000, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the so-called corrigendum is in fact a fresh SCN since it materially alters the original SCN both in terms of the demand raised as well as the grounds on which the demand was raised. The question framed for consideration by this Court is answered in the negative i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C/V-137/2000. 2. In the present appeal, the Court had framed the following question for consideration by its order dated 13th February, 2006: (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the determination of impugned short levy of duty is saved by limitation under the Act? 3. The brief background facts are that on 11th March 1993, the Customs Department (Department) issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dum was not legally tenable and was anyway barred by limitation. In other words, issuance of a corrigendum after expiry of seven years of the issuance of the original SCN pertaining to matters not included in the original SCN was certainly not permissible in law. 7. After the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs adjudicated the corrigendum SCN by an order dated 29 th February, 2000 confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as explained how the SCN is a foundation of the demand under the Central Excise Act and that an addendum cannot seek to bring in purview new matters, which were not mentioned in the original SCN. Recently, this Court in its judgment dated 24th June, 2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2845 of 2018 (M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise and Customs) has quashed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
