9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was Rs.17,32,475/-. 2. The above difference is claimed to have been communicated to the assessee through various letters, but non response by the assessee to the above reminders prompted the Revenue to assume that the assessee had clandestinely cleared the goods without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty in contravention of Rules 4, 6 and 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Thus, a Show Cause Notice dated 16.04.2014 came to be issued by invoking the extended time limit under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 thereby proposing to demand the differential duty apart from applicable interest and penalty. It appears that the appellant filed its reply to the SCN interalia stating that they supplied TMT bars for RNS Infras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides, the issue to be decided is, "whether the demand as confirmed in the impugned order is sustainable"? 5. From the documents placed on record, in the reply to the SCN, it is revealed that during the visit of the officers of DGCEI in 2010 and subsequent resumption of records from JFSPL and its suppliers of raw materials, the Show Cause Notice dated 16.04.2014 relating to the period June 2009 to December 2010 came to be issued. It is also asserted that the said agency had looked into the ER - 1 Returns, Books of Account including balance sheet, etc. and, at no point of time did they raise any query as regards the alleged removal of TMT bars or billets without payment of duty. From the OIO, I find that the Authority has tried to negate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability, before the period of six months. Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the facts referred to hereinbefore do not warrant any inference of fraud. The assessee declared the goods on the basis of their belief of the interpretation of the provisions of the law that the exempted goods were not required to be inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009. Since the demand was raised after May 2010, i.e. on 03.11.2010, therefore the same is hit by limitation" 7. It is clear that the time limit would start ticking when the Revenue came to know about the manufacturing activity of the appellant and that was the time when the show cause notice should have been issued and the Revenue having failed to do so, they cannot therefore allege suppression on the part of the appellant and invoke the extended time limit. Hence, the ratio of the said order is squarely applicable here also, in the case on hand, since from the date of visit/verification of records by DGCI in 2010 and the date of SCN, more than three years have lapsed. Hence, the same clearly is hit by the time limitation. 8. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
