9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued on 27.3.2001. It is true that the show-cause notices were issued with regard to part of the transactions for different periods, but on the basis of the same inspection made on 16.9.1996. Once the earlier show-cause notices were issued with regard to the same inspection, then the averment of the department cannot be accepted that they have discovered suppression, fraud etc. subsequently. Everything was within the knowledge of the department from the date of inspection and from the Panchnama made by them on 16.9.1996. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period of five years was not available to the department. - Decided against Revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO. 933 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing against respective lot numbers shown in the register. The Officers also allegedly recovered computerized datewise receipts from Shri S. U. Sharma, General Manager of P.F. The Show-cause notice dated 27.3.2001 was issued asking the respondent to pay duty of ₹ 25,76,598/- on account of illicit removal. Excise duty of ₹ 1,60,77,291/- on the differential value of man made fabrics processed cleared by them undervaluing the same and asking to impose the penalty, interest etc. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner and consequent to the adjudication order, the duty of ₹ 25,76,598/- was confirmed on alleged illicit removal invoking the extended period for the reason of suppression of facts and willful misstatements. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the show-cause notice was issued within a period of five years and was a valid show-cause notice and being satisfied that there is an evasion of excise duty, the Commissioner levied excise duty as well as penalty by giving cogent reasons. The order of the Commissioner was challenged by the respondent before the CESTAT which allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 20.12.2005 holding that the show-cause notice was hopelessly time barred. 6. Mr. Bhatt further urged that the view taken by CESTAT was not correct as after taking statements and examining documents, show-cause notice was issued on 27.3.2001 which was well within a period of five years and was a legal show-cause notice and the view taken by the Tribunal that the show-ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Contractor was entrusted in making the entries therein through the labourers employed by him. The entries made by the labourers in the register cannot be called to be sufficient to establish clandestine removal. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that it is not disputed that the inspection was carried out by the Officers of the appellants on 16.91996. The first show-cause notice was issued on 14.3.1997 and the second showcause notice was issued on 20.4.1998 and the third show-cause notice was issued on 27.3.2001. It is true that the show-cause notices were issued with regard to part of the transactions for different periods, but on the basis of the same inspection made on 16.9.1996. Onc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been shown as receipt at Parag House were found pending in the factory premises of PIL (processed house). 13. We have carefully heard both the sides. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, perusal of the records and the case laws relied by the learned counsel, we find that when the Officers had visited the factory premises on 28.9.96 for follow-up action and have been drawn factual panchnama on 20-21.9.96, detained certain goods on 21.9.96 recorded the statement during the period 16-17/9.96 to 12.12.96, the show-cause notice dt.14.3.97 culminated in the order of the Tribunal reported in 2000 (121) ELT 540 (T) and the prosecution of the case was settled on 23.3.99 as at page 164 of show-cause notice on 27.3.2001 for the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Gaurang Bhatt that the department had no knowledge about the suppression of facts on the part of assessee - respondent or when the first or second show-cause notice was issued by the department. In all the three show-cause notices, the allegations are more or less same based on same factual aspects. 11. In view of the facts of this case, we answer the question No.1 against the department and in favour of the assessee and held that the extended period of five years would not be available to the department under Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act in the facts of the case. So far as question No.2 is concerned, since the entire proceedings is time barred, excise duty cannot be levied again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
