9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration as to whether the extended period of limitation had been correctly invoked by the department or not. - C.M.A.No.110 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2011 - MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN, MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN, JJ. For Appellant :: Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph For Respondent :: Mr.P.Mahadevan JUDGMENT D.MURUGESAN, J. This civil miscellaneous appeal raises the following substantial question of law, namely, as to whether the Revenue would be entitled to demand the payment of duty beyond the period of six months from the date it became due under the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules? 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of mineral water. On 14.2.98, the officers attached to the Chennai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). By order dated 10.10.2001, the Commissioner found that the show cause notice is time barred and the invokation of the extended period is not applicable to the facts of the case. The said finding was rendered on the basis that the demand should have been made in a period of six months from the date when the payment was due and consequently allowed the appeal after setting aside the order-in-original. 4. This order was taken on further appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue and by the impugned order, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed on merits. Hence, the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of six months from the date it became due in terms of clause (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. Nevertheless, the question as to whether the extended period of limitation had been invoked or not is a mixed question of fact and law, the CESTAT would be entitled to consider that question. Since the CESTAT has not considered the said question, while answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant, we remit the matter to the CESTAT for fresh consideration as to whether the extended period of limitation had been correctly invoked by the department or not and we do not express any opinion on the finding on merits. Accordingly, for the purpose of remittal, we set aside the order of the CESTAT and the civil miscella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
