9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 770 - AT - Central ExciseInvoking extended period of Limitation - Suppression of facts Held that - As decided in HYDERABAD POLYMERS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD 2004 (3) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA once the earlier Show Cause Notice, on similar issue has been dropped, it can no longer be said that there is any suppression. The extended period of limitation would thus not be available. As in the present case department had issued a show cause notice dated 28.08.2008 demanding duty for the period from April 2004 to June 2008 invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) on the ground that the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and they had suppressed the relevant facts from the department. On the basis of the same facts the department has issued show cause notice for subsequent period from July 2008 to 4.12.2008 on 6.7.2010 again invoking the extended period, which in view of the Apex Court s judgement in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is not permissible - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Time limitation for invoking duty demand under Central Excise Act. 2. Applicability of extended period for duty demand. 3. Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant. 4. Jurisprudence on invoking extended period for similar set of facts. Analysis: 1. The appellant was engaged in converting duty paid sugar into boora, mishri, and makhana, selling these items without paying excise duty. A show cause notice was issued for duty demand of Rs.59,92,542 for the period July 2008 to 4.12.2008, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. 2. The appellant contended that the duty demand was time-barred as a previous show cause notice had been issued for the period April 2004 to June 2008 on the same set of facts. The department's issuance of a subsequent notice for the period from July 2008 to 4.12.2008 invoking the extended period was challenged based on the principle that the same set of facts cannot be used to invoke extended period multiple times. 3. The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts as all relevant information was known to the authorities when the first show cause notice was issued. The subsequent notices could not be considered as suppression of facts as the authorities were already aware of the facts. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, holding that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. 4. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE, to support its decision. It emphasized that when a show cause notice has been issued for an earlier period based on certain facts, another notice based on the same or similar facts invoking the extended period cannot be issued. The jurisprudence established that in such cases, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, as there was no willful suppression or misstatement by the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the duty demand raised by the show cause notice dated 6.7.2010 was time-barred due to the principle against invoking the extended period for the same set of facts. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
