2010 (9) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rinciple of Section 3 of the Limitation Act is squarely applicable in this case and it has been rightly applied - Accordingly appeal is dismissed
Sengupta and Kanchan Chakraborty, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Maity, for the Appellant. [Order]. - The Court : We have heard Mr. Maity who urges for admission of the appeal on the various grounds as mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal and with emphasis, on ground No. VIII at page 16 of admission of application which is quoted hereunder :- "For that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate and interpret correctly the provision of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and should have once it has held that there has been suppression with evade to payment of duty the period of five years is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect for the period the words five years were substituted.." 5. On plain reading of the aforesaid proviso it is clear that there must be amongst other suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the assessee, meaning thereby on the analysis of the fact, it is found that if there is no scope for any suppression of fact by the assessee the above period of limitation as envisaged in the proviso is not applicable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arch, 1997 again replied to the said jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The appellant also obtained registration for manufacturing of the goods in question. 7. Thus the Tribunal has correctly recorded that the revenue was aware of the activity undertaken by the appellant as on 10th September, 1996 when it was explained regarding the manufacturing process. Assistant Commissioner made a query even on 29th September, 1996. Everything was placed before the Assistant Commissioner. Had the Assistant Commissioner any doubt about this explanation he could have made search and seizure enquiry. It was not done so. Therefore it does not appear that there has been suppression on the part of the assessee hence question of evading duty does not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X