9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Demand of duty for the year 1979-80. 2. Demand of duty for the year 1980-81. 3. Applicability of Section 11A on the ground of absence of malafide intention. 4. Consideration of the question of limitation in the appeals. 5. Scope of remand order in relation to the question of limitation. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved two appeals that were clubbed together due to a common question of law and facts. The first issue concerned the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,33,031.61 for the year 1979-80, while the second issue involved a demand of duty of Rs. 2,04,782.19 for the year 1980-81. The appellants, who were manufacturers of Graphite Crucibles and Graphite powder, contested the duty demands based on an Exemption Notification and argued that the demands were time-barred. Initially, the Assistant Collector rejected these contentions, but on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. Regarding the question of limitation, the Assistant Collector noted that the appellants had not provided necessary information to the department, indicating a lack of transparency in their dealings. However, on further appeal, the Collector (Appeals) focused solely on the value of clearances by the appellants during the relevant years and confirmed the demands. The appellants contended that the demands were time-barred as there was no allegation of misrepresentation or wilful suppression of facts in the show cause notices, thus invoking the proviso to Section 11A to extend the time limit for raising demands from 6 months to 5 years. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and records, noting that the remand order encompassed not only determining the value of clearances but also considering the question of limitation. It was observed that the demands, being beyond the six-month period preceding the show cause notices and lacking necessary allegations, were indeed barred by time. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the lower authorities' orders, and granted consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment emphasized the importance of meeting the legal requirements for invoking an extended period of limitation and upheld the appellants' argument regarding the time-barred nature of the demands.
|
