9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of law. "1. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law by overlooking the fact that by subsequently bringing the fact of suppression and evasion of duty to the knowledge of the department, the assessee cannot get the benefit of the 1st proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Whether the Tribunal committed substantial error of law interpreting the provisions contained in the proviso of section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1949." 2. We heard learned advocate Mr. Gaurang Bhatt for the Revenue and Mr. A.P. Nainavati, learned advocate for the respondent. 3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The respondent was engaged in manufacture of glass bottles and glass vials at their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred by the Department, this court by order dated 23.03.2011 remanded the matter for fresh decision. It is in that background that the Tribunal has rendered the impugned order acting on the remand order. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order held that there was no positive mis-declaration or suppression on part of the assessee with an intent to evade the payment of duty. The invocation of longer period of limitation under section 11A was therefore not justified. The Tribunal took into account letter dated 16.03.2000 addressed by the respondent assessee on its own to the competent Central Excise authority. 4.1 That letter read as under: "To The SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DATE: 16.03.2000 3rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officers visited the factory and noticed the clearances of casting moulds without duty. Therefore, the conduct of the assessee was honest and cannot be ascribed with an intention to evade the duty. The Tribunal rightly held that the invocation of extended period of limitation was not approvable. 6. Even otherwise, the entire exercise was to end up in a revenue neutral situation since, admittedly, the goods were cleared by the appellant to its sister concern, which was registered with the Central Excise Department as a separate and distinct unit. In that view, following observations by the Tribunal deserve to he upheld. "In any case, we find that the law on the above issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
