9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice dated 10-9-2004 and tried to be fortified or enhanced by corrigendum are held to be inappropriate and illegal. Show cause notice dated 10-9-2004 as well as corrigendum dated 17-6-2005 and 28-7-2005 were without any authority of law and inappropriate and illegal - demands and other proposed cause of actions are barred by limitation - appeal is allowed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in this case. He submits that they are only challenging the portion of the adjudicating authority's order which has upheld the limitation but confirmed the demands of amount paid by them on the force of the lower authorities. He draws our attention to paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 of the Order-in-Original. It is his submission that even if the any payment is made by the party on a letter written by the Range Superintendent, the assessee can definitely raise the legal point before the authorities when the show cause notice is issued. 4. Learned AR reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 5. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue in this case is in very narrow compass i.e. whether the adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short levy as six month period was got substituted under Section 11A w.e.f 12th May-2000. I do fully appreciate the submissions of the noticee company that they have not mis-declared anything and they have not suppressed anything. I do accept such stand of the noticee. Rather the fact is that their invoices were verified, signed stamped on by the. Inspector, Central Excise in-charge of the factory. They also submitted RT-13 statements which was also signed, verified and stamped by the Inspector. Therefore, the question of suppression of facts or mis-declaration with an intention to evade duty is baseless as not borne on any tangible- evidences rather there is not averment or any material which can create any doubt on bona fide of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the price of the goods cleared was taken as cum duty price. But the period involved was from 1-3-2000 to 31-3-2002. However such payment was really short as the demand was worked out for 14,48,878/- for period 16-9-1999 to 31-8-2002. I further find that, on merits, the demand was initially as conveyed for the period as demanded in show cause noticed dated 10-9-2004 as same was due in terms of the circular dated 6-2-2001. 21. As contemplated under the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 every notice for demand have to specify the quantum of duty otherwise it cannot be treated as proper demand. Once the amount is specified, it cannot be enhanced even by the adjudicating authority unless a fresh show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect of the circular dated 6-2-2001 could be made operative only after 1-3-2002. Since notices were not issued in terms of the C.B.E. & C. circular even after 1-3-2002 within the normal period therefore the department had to be allowed to suffer for its revenue loss. Since the payment made by the party was on written communication by way of demand which on merit was sustainable and payable and hence the demand so paid is hereby; held as legal, proper, sustainable and maintainable. They do not deserve any refund neither on merit nor on limitation. However, jacking them with further liabilities after limitation period is over, is not justified and cannot be maintained and sustained. Therefore, the proceedings started by issuance of show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
