9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 2. The representative of the appellant does not dispute the liability to duty on merits. He also does not dispute the application of the proviso to Section 11A for part of the period on the ground of suppression of material facts, that the value of components supplied by the manufacturer to whom the appellant a job worker, returned the finished goods, was not included in the assessable value. What he disputes is the applicability of the proviso contained in Section 11A(1) for the period from 24-6-1989 to 31-3-1990. On 24-6-1989, he says, the fact of omission of the value of the components was brought to the notice of the department by Babubhai Patel, one of the partners of the appellant firm by means of a statement tendered on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade duty, the entire period of five years from the relevant date will be available to the department and that period cannot be reduced to a period of six months from the department s coming to know of the suppression. The question before us however is not that. The proviso to Section 11A makes available the extended period of five years where any duty had not been levied or not paid or short levied or short paid (or erroneously refunded) by reason of any of the factors mentioned in that proviso with an intent to evade duty. One of them is suppression of facts. Now, the department has made aware on 23-6-1989 of the fact that the duty so far calculated and paid was not correct for the reason that the declared value of the finished products ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough this is not strictly relevant to determination of the issue here, we are unable to see why the department should have taken more than a year and half to ascertain this information. Obviously the question of calculating the duty yet to be paid does not arise. 6. Allowing a reasonable period of 15 days to the department to have taken action to safeguard the duty on the past clearances, we get the date of 8-7-1989, It will have to be held that the demand for the period from this date onwards to 31-3-1990 is barred by limitation and the duty on the clearance and the order confirming the demand during the period is set aside. 7. Having regard to the facts of this case, we do not think the penalty of Rs 1.00 lac imposed calls for any in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
