2015 (8) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... extended period of limitation was invoked on the ground that the respondents had not stated about the proprietory interest in any other factory. It was argued by the respondent that there was no such requirement and therefore, by not mentioning the aforesaid fact, no suppression was made of any material. This contention was accepted by the CESTAT holding the show cause notice to be time barred. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of insulated wires falling under Chapter Heading 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. It is the case of the Revenue that from the investigation conducted by the officers of Central Excise, it appeared that the first respondent have floated two units in the name and style of M/s Ranka Alcop, the second respondent and M/s Insulated Wires Manufacturing Company, the third respondent and split the v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le. Before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'), the respondents did not challenge the finding of the Commissioner on merits. The only ground raised was that it is beyond the period of limitation and the Revenue could not invoke the proviso to Section 11A of the Act inasmuch as there was no suppression. We may record that the ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X