Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (4) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... work claimed to have been undertaken by him. Coming to the issue of limitation. On reading of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, it is clear that the Department can invoke the extended period of five years limitation in cases of fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact by the assessee or contravention of any provision of the Excise Act. - Demand confirmed - decided against the assessee. - E/863/2010 - A/737/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 26-6-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Nagesh Pathak, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President (Oral)]. The appellants are engaged in manufa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalty of equal amount on the appellant. 5. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order-in-original and the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 104/RPR/APPL-1/2009, it is against the aforesaid order of Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant approached this Tribunal. 6. Learned Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, has assailed the impugned order on two counts. He has submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in coming to the conclusion that the goods in question were used for construction of the shed and office building. Ld. Counsel contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the appellant in his reply to show cause notice has given details of user of the items i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the department and concealment of fact of user of items in question. In this regard, ld. AR has submitted that the appellant had concealed the fact that the goods in question were used in construction of the office building and shed and by concealing the fact the appellant has practices fraud on the department to evade payment of excise duty. Thus, it is contended that the department has rightly invoked the extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In order to appreciate the contention of the rival parties it would be useful to have a look on the impugned order to find out as to how the Commissioner (Appeals) d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice was issued on 5-3-2008 and further proceedings resulting in impugned order-in-original were carried out why the appellant at every stage failed to produce the said certificate dated 26-6-2008, as if the same was produced before audit taken it would have resulted in proper verification of its authenticity by counterchecking with books of accounts/ledgers maintained by Appellant . 9. On reading of the above it is evident that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the appellant is based upon the entries contained in the ledger account maintained by the appellant. Therefore the finding based on appellants own record cannot be faulted. As regards the certificate of Chartered Engineer relied upon by the appellant, we may note .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refunded, by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect for the words one year, the words five years were substituted . 11. On reading of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, it is clear that the Department can invoke the extended period of five years limitation in cases of fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact by the assessee or contravention of any provision of the Excise Act or the Rules framed thereunder. 12. Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 defines Input .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates