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 (8) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssue in respect of appellants for the audit period – Therefore, finding of the Commissioner that it is not clear whether audit had in fact examined this issue or not is not sustainable - Extended period as provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act will not be applicable in the present case. Show cause notice was issued on 05.01.2005 - Demand issued in the show cause notice beyond the period of one year is completely time barred - Since there is no finding from the RUDs 18 and 19 that there is any clearances after 04.01.2004, entire show cause notice is hit by time limitation – Decided in favor of Assessee. - Appeal Nos. 2490 -2491 of 2006 - Final Order Nos. 55440-55441/2013(PB) - Dated:- 17-1-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule 2001. Shri Deepak Adlakha, Head Operation was also issued show cause notice for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule, 2001 for master minding the evasion of the duty by the manufacturer. The show cause notices were contested by the noticees and the Commissioner vide the impugned order has confirmed the demand against the main appellant holding that the value of items supplied free of cost and cost on account of amortization is to be added in the assessable value and penalty equal to the duty amount was also imposed on the appellant and penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt that the job worker is not liable to pay the duty on inputs supplied by the final product manufacturer as it had not taken credit for modvat in respect of inputs. He submits that their case is squarely covered by the International Auto and therefore, their appeals need to be allowed. 3. He also submits that demand in this case has been raised on 04.01.2005 demanding the duty from the financial year 1999 to 2004 on the ground of suppression of fact and as a matter of fact there was not any suppression on the part of the appellant. He submits that entire facts were well within the knowledge of the department and their central excise records have been audited by the Central Excise Officer from time to time and therefore the charge of su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nly and they were maintaining all the records in their factory. They also submitted that their factory was periodically audited by the Officers of the excise department in support of which they have submitted the documents confirming the audit of the unit by the officers of the department. It is the contention of the appellants that during the audit the officers have processed each and every piece of information in the instant case. Since all the facts and information were available to the officers of the department there is no question of suppression of any information from the department and, therefore, the extended period under Section 11A is not applicable to their case. 7. After going through the impugned order, we find that the Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respect of appellants for the audit period. We, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the Commissioner that it is not clear whether audit had in fact examined this issue or not. Once the officers have conducted the audit periodically during the period involved in the show cause notice and had not raised any objection on the issues involved in the appeal, we are of the view that suppression on the part of the assessee cannot be invoked in the present case. Accordingly, the extended period as provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act will not be applicable in the present case. 10. We find the show cause notice in this case has been issued on 04.01.2005 and the duty has been demanded for the period 01.12.1999 to 30.11.2004. .....

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