9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has to allege and establish fraud, collusion, willful suppression or misstatement of facts or contravention of any provision of law with intent to evade payment of duty, against the defaulter. This did not happen in the present case. Therefore the entire demand has to be held to be time-barred – Decided in favor of assessee. - E/1056 & 1057/2006 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2012 - SHRI P. G. CHACKO, SHRI M. VEERAIYAN, JJ. For the appellants : Shri Ravi Rajendran, JDR for Revenue. For the respondents : Shri J. Sankarraman, Advocate for assessee. [Order: Per P.G. Chacko]. These appeals filed by the department are directed against two orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had imported certain inputs on payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above should not be demanded and appropriated against the said demand under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944; (iv) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 13 of erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (presently Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004) and (v) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The above proposals were contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order vacating the protest of the respondent. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent preferred an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter allowed that appeal with consequential relief vide order-in-appeal No.261/2006-CE dated 22.8.2006, which is under challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish fraud, collusion, willful suppression or misstatement of facts or contravention of any provision of law with intent to evade payment of duty, against the defaulter. This did not happen in the present case. The requisite grounds were not raised in any of the show-cause notices for invoking the larger period of limitation. In other words, the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act was not invoked. Therefore the entire demand has to be held to be time-barred. This view rightly taken by the lower appellate authority is fully supported by the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in Kaur Singh vs. CCE, New Delhi - 1997 (74) E.L.T. 289 (SC). 5. Both the appeals are dismissed. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
