Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (12) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ish Goel, questioning the confirmation of the duty and imposition of penalties against them through the impugned order by the Commissioner, while Appeal No. E/2261/02 has been preferred by the Revenue for modification of the impugned order for awarding interest under Section 11AB and imposition of separate penalty under Rule 173Q on the appellant No. 1. 2. The duty has been confirmed and penalties have been imposed on appellants 1 and 2 by denying them the benefit of exemption Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86 for the period 1-4-97 to 3-6-2000 on their goods hubs manufactured and cleared by them during that period. They were served with the show cause notice on 15-10-2001 by alleging that they had wrongly availed the benefit of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of it is time-barred and that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as all the facts regarding the manufactures of the goods (hubs) for animal driven vehicles, by the appellants were in the knowledge of the Department. 4. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order by contending that there was suppression of true facts by the appellants 1 and 2 and the extended period of limitation had been rightly invoked. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. We find from the record that the appellants 1 and 2 are engaged in the manufacture of cast articles of iron and steel, hubs of animal driven vehicles (in short ADV). They had been availing exemption from payment o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority also ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them besides redemption fine of Rs. 65,000/- vide order, dated 27-2-97. This order was challenged by them and the first appellate authority virtually confirmed that order and also denied the exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86, through order dated 12-9-97. The appeal of the appellants 1 and 2 against that order was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order, dated 8-9-99. The dispute regarding the duty liability in respect of these very goods even came up for settlement before the Commissioner under the KVSS and the perusal of the Certificate, dated 9-2-97 (Annexure 27) shows that the appellants 1 and 2 accepted the settlement and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the hubs as of ADV and claimed the benefit of the exemption notification, the Department could easily visit the factory and see the actual nature of the hubs being manufactured by them. Moreover, there is no tangible evidence to say that the hubs manufactured by the appellants 1 and 2 during the period in question could not be used in the ADV. The test report of Dr. Prashant Kumar, Professor, IIT, Kanpur, dated 15-2-2001 on which much reliance has been placed, does not in any manner prove suppression of facts by the appellants 1 and 2. He in his report has only stated that the hubs manufactured by these appellants are stronger than those recommended in the IS specification for animal driven vehicles. He nowhere stated that these hubs could .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hesitation to hold that there had been no suppression of facts by the appellants 1 and 2 from the Department regarding the manufacture and clearance of the goods in question by them during the period in dispute. That being so, the duty demand raised for the period 1-4-97 to 30-6-2000 through the show cause notice, dated 15-10-2001 must be held to be time-barred. 11. Since the duty demand has been held to be time-barred, the other issue on merits regarding the availability of the benefit of the notification in question to the appellants 1 and 2 in respect of the goods in question is not required to be gone into. 12. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole short ground alone that the demand is barred by limitation. 13. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates