2012 (7) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thly statutory returns like RT-12/ER-1 indicating that no duty has been paid by the appellant on the loading and forwarding charges while clearing the goods from the factory and therefore, the allegation of suppression of relevant facts is totally without any basis – in favour of assessee.
SHRI S. K. GAULE, DR. D. M. MISRA, JJ. Shri D. K. Nath, Dy. Commr. (A.R.) for the Department Shri M. S. Nagaraja, Adv. for the Respondent (s) Per Shri S. K. Gaule : Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order in Appeal No.43/B-I/06 dated 20.4.06, whereby the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority and allowed respondent s appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e show-cause notice. The contention is that the Department could not bring out any evidence for suppression of facts or willful mis-statement against them. The contention is that the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is clear and cogent. Therefore, the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. Undisputedly, the period involved in this case is beyond the normal period of limitation as prescribed under Section 11A of CEA, 1944. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand on aspect of limitation as is clear from Para 6.2 of the impugned order which reads as under : 6.2 As regards the aspect of time bar, I find that the issue relates to the period .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... een admitted that the detection was made while verifying the monthly returns filed by the appellant, the invocation of extended period is not available to the Revenue in terms of the decision of Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. reported in 2003 (154) ELT 121 and in the case of Bombay Processors reported in 2004 (163) ELT 111. Further, I find Board vide Circular No.124/35/95-CX dated 10.5.95 has stipulated that the obligation is cast on the department to scrutinize the documents furnished by the assessee and accordingly the Revenue was at full liberty to verify the necessary records placed before them and to raise allegation within the time frame under Section 11A of the Act. As there is no suppression the invocat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X