9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rection contained in the Tribunal s order, we read relevant portion of the order below : The only question left for determination is as to whether larger period is invokable in the present case. The learned Advocate has relied on the letter dated 17-5-1983 addressed to the Inspector. The letter has got seal of the Inspector and signature of some person. This letter has not been adverted to in the finding. The learned DR has expressed a doubt about its genuineness and also submits that the appellants had not informed about their activity to the department. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the learned Collector and no verification about the receipt of the letter appears to have been done by the department. It is also n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal that the Commissioner s finding that the extended period for demand of duty under Section 11A is available to the Revenue is not correct and has been reached without proper appreciation of evidence. It has been submitted that the letter dated 17-5-83 of the appellants had been received and acknowledged by the Inspector of C Range of the Mangalore Division and the Commissioner should have called the officer for examination during the proceedings and if necessary, allowed him to be cross-examined by the appellants. Instead of ascertaining facts through such a course, as requested by the appellants, the Commissioner has brushed aside the letter by making the aforesaid observations which are not reasonable at all. The Commissioner s obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd were expected to export about 98% of their produce. In that context also the Revenue authorities were aware of their activities. In these circumstances, the appellants strongly contend that the charge of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty cannot stand against the appellants and the demand is required to be limited to the normal period for recovery of duty not paid as contained in the main part of Section 11A. 4. With regard to grant of remission of duty in respect of exported goods, the appellants have submitted that they could not have produced documentary evidence as the documents relating to exports were among the documents seized and kept in their custody by the Central Excise authorities. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also after three years of the filing of the letter. The omission to mention the letter, therefore, cannot be taken to mean that no such letter was filed by the appellants. In the circumstances, we accept the appellants' plea regarding time limit and order that the demand be worked out for a period of six months preceding the issue of the show cause notice. This observation of ours is further fortified by the following observation of the Commissioner in Paragraph 19 of the order :- On a close scrutiny of the said letter, I find that the date on the letter has been tampered with. From this it would appear that the Commissioner had scrutinised the original letter, even though he has observed in the very next paragraph that the assessee d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
