2012 (1) TMI 182 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - delay of three months and five days in preferring the appeal - dispute is relating to the valuation of physician samples of medicaments - Held that - there was neither any fraud, collusion or any wilful mis statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, that can be attributed to the respondent, for invoking larger period of limitation - there being no mala fide attributed to the appellant on the ground of extended period of limitation as well as penalty, no error could be seen in the order of the Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of the CESTAT regarding limitation on demand raised by the Department and penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The petition challenged the CESTAT order proposing questions on the limitation of the demand raised by the Department and the penalty imposed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the issue of limitation as the show cause notice was challenged beyond the normal period. The Tribunal found no fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement by the respondent, leading to the demand being held beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal referenced a previous case and concluded that the demand was beyond the limitation period due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing by the respondent. The Tribunal emphasized that the dispute was a question of bona fide interpretation, and there was no malafide intent on the part of the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was upheld as there was no error found, and the appeal was dismissed as there was no legal question requiring determination by the Court.