9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 335 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of SCN - time limitation - Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the SCN dated 13.1.1999 invoking the provisions of Section 11A(1) is barred by limitation on the basis of SCN dated 23.6.1997 which is issued only for the purpose of seizure of the goods and not for any demand under Section 11A? - Held that - on the very same allegations and documents, another show cause notice dated 13th January, 1999 was issued and that was for the same purpose. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this demand, what one finds from a reading of his order as well that the basis for the SCN dated 26th March, 1997 was the seizure. It is in these circumstances that the CESTAT s conclusion is unassailable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) | Justification of holding that show cause notice (SCN) dated 13.1.1999 is barred by limitation | Violation of principles of natural justice | Denial of cross-examination of witnesses | Compliance with the onus on the department to supply relied upon documents | Demand for duty under proviso to section 11A(1) for the period 1994-95 to 1996-97 | Admission of appeal on substantial question of law | Interpretation of earlier show cause notice dated 23.6.1997 | Application of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Nizam Sugar Factory case | Consideration of facts and circumstances leading to investigation and issuance of show cause notice. Analysis: The High Court of BOMBAY HIGH COURT heard an appeal challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 15th July, 2005. The primary issue was whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the SCN dated 13.1.1999 invoking Section 11A(1) was barred by limitation. The tribunal found that the Preventive Officers initiated an inquiry on 29th September, 1996, issued a show cause notice on 26th March, 1997, and passed an order on 12th December, 1997. Another show cause notice dated 13th January, 1999 was issued to recover duty for the period 1994-95 to 1996-97. The tribunal concluded that principles of natural justice were violated due to non-supply of documents and denial of cross-examination of witnesses, leading to prejudice against the assessee. The appeal raised questions regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, the demand being barred by limitation, and the interpretation of the show cause notices. The respondent relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Nizam Sugar Factory case, stating that relevant facts known to authorities during the first notice issuance could not be treated as suppression in subsequent notices. The appellant argued that the appeal was admitted based on a substantial question of law, distinct from the Supreme Court's judgment. The High Court considered the facts and found that the CESTAT's conclusion was sound, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation. The show cause notice dated 26th March, 1997 was based on seizure, and the subsequent notice dated 13th January, 1999 was for the same purpose, leading to the rejection of the appeal. In the final analysis, the High Court ruled against the Revenue, upholding the CESTAT's decision that the SCN dated 13.1.1999 was barred by limitation. The judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing compliance with legal principles and rejecting the Revenue's arguments. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
