2005 (3) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s a duty demand of about Rs. 8.5 lakhs for the period August 1995 to September 1996 confirmed by invoking the extended period as available under Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, there is no mis-statement or suppression of facts attracting the Proviso and that this demand along with the equal penalty imposed, is re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld have been only an irresponsible statement. However, when the exemption was obtained through such a statement of fact which was specifically found to be wrong, the appellants' conduct would assume the colour of mis-statement of fact. Mis-statement of fact is a circumstance mentioned in proviso to Section 11A. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the duty demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X