9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner, vide his Order dated 24-4-1984, confirming the entire demand raised in the show cause notice and also imposing personal penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh upon the appellants. On an appeal against the above Order, arguments were advanced on the point of limitation as also on the point of violation of principles of natural justice and on merits in respect of enclosure II to show cause notice (there were in toto four enclosures to the show cause notice). The Tribunal vide its Order No. 123/90-B1 dated 27-7-1990, observed as under (vide para 16) :- In view of the above discussions we are of the view that there was no suppression or concealment on the part of the appellant and as such, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, there were other evidences also to the effect that the longer period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. Shri Bagaria, learned Advocate, submits that in respect of four enclosures, the same set of facts and circumstances were available on record on the basis of which the Tribunal had given their finding on the point of limitation. As such, it cannot be concluded that the limitation findings were only in respect of Annexure : II. Apart from this fact, he has drawn our attention to the fact that the Classification Lists were approved, each pass-out was serially numbered, Central Excise Officers were posted at their factory and pass-outs were duly authenticated by the Central Excise Officers and all relevant papers were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants, and, as such extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Appreciating this finding in the background of the submission made by the appellants before the Tribunal, which has been seen by us, it becomes evident that this finding was in respect of the entire proceedings before the Tribunal and cannot be confined to the Enclosure-II only, as has been done by the Commissioner. The observation of the Tribunal in para 16 in respect of Enclosure-II was separately made because the appellants had made arguments on merits in respect of the said Enclosure. As such, we hold that there was no doubt as regards the fact that the findings of the Tribunal in respect of limitation covered the entire proceedings and were not made in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 35 (S.C.) = 2000 (36) RLT-363 (S.C.), is appropriate. As such, in any case, we hold that the demand of duty is barred by limitation except for the period which falls within the period of six months from the date of issuance of show cause notice. 9.2 As regards the personal penalty of Rs. 40,000.00, we have already reproduced para 18 of the Tribunal's earlier Order vide which the matter was remanded to the Commissioner. There is a clear finding by the Tribunal that in the absence of element of mens rea, the personal penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh was quashed. As such, it was not at all open to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta to again impose the personal penalty on the appellants by observing that culpable state of mind on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
