9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended period of limitation was not available to the department In case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 631 (HC) ), once the facts necessary to permit the department extended period of limitation are established on record, thereafter, the question of initiating proceedings within six months/one year from the date of knowledge of the department, is not relevant - 267 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2011 - Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri R.J. Oza and Gaurang Bhatt, SSCs, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Akil Kureshi, J. (Oral)]. Revenue is in appeal against judgment of CESTAT dated 22-6-2010 [2010 (261) E.L.T. 1150 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]. Following questions have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22-6-2010 rejected the Revenue s appeal in following terms : 4. The learned SDR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the respondents were fully aware that they had manufactured dyed yarn during the period prior to 17-4-1997, the date on which the unit was converted to a non composite mill by removing the texturised machines and thereby becoming a dyeing unit. As per Notification No. 19/97-C.E., dated 11-4-1997, a concessional rate of duty was fixed in respect of dyed filament yearn manufactured in a factory which does not have the facilities for producing single or draw twisting or, texturised yarn. Appellant had manufactured dyed yarn prior to 11-4-1997 when the unit was a composite mill and therefore yarn manufactured during the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine. Further the respondents also filed return with the department which showed that appellants had cleared goods at a concessional rate of duty and in view of the fact that registration certificate had been amended, department cannot be said to be unaware of the fact of clearance of Stock manufactured prior to 17-4-1997. Further even after the visit of the officers on 8-5-1997 for preventive checks, the show cause notice could have definitely been issued within one year or six months as the case may be since the case is based on statutory records and goods have been cleared under proper documents only goods manufactured have been accounted properly exemption has been claimed in the documents. The purpose of filing the monthly returns, requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision in case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the point from which the period of one year or five years is computed is relevant date as defined in sub-section (3)(ii) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and once knowledge was acquired by the department regarding clandestine removal, proceedings must be initiated within one year, would not be the correct position in law. 5. In the present case, however, we find from the orders of the Tribunal that the very foundational fact of clandestine removal of goods is not established. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the department was fully aware all along that the assessee was manufacturing dyed yarn prior to 17-4-1997, date on which unit was converted to non compo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
