9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner reversed – Tribunal has not at all discussed as to how finding of Commissioner is erroneous on facts – When machinery was shifted it was bona fide action of assessee and there was mis-statement in this behalf – Therefore, Commissioner was right in his conclusion that extended period of limitation could not be invoked – On this ground alone, appeals filed by appellants are to succeed – Thus, impugned order set aside – Decided in favour of assesse. - Civil Appeal Nos. 54-57 Of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos.665-668 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2015 - Mr. A.k. Sikri and Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ . For the Petitioner :Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv., Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv., Mr. R. Ramchandran, Adv., Mr. Aditya Bhattac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year 1993. Finalisation of proceedings, further filing of bill of entry etc. was completed in the year 1994 and show cause notice was issued on 31 st December, 1995. Admittedly, it was beyond the period of six months which period was prescribed under the Act at the relevant time. The Revenue had invoked the extended period of limitation on the ground that there was misstatement of facts by the assessee. We have gone through the allegations made in the show-cause notice in this behalf as well as reply to the said show cause notice. In the reply to the show cause notice, contesting the decision taken by the Revenue on limitation, the assessee had raised the following defence:- Machines in question have been imported in accordance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee herein is repelled and the order of the Commissioner reversed. The Tribunal has not at all discussed as to how the finding of the Commissioner is erroneous on facts. It cannot be denied that there was no declaration by the assesee. In view of the explanation given by the assessee which is extracted above, we find that when the machinery was shifted from Waluj to Thane was a bona fide action of the assessee and there was mis-statement in this behalf. We are, therefore, of the view that the Commissioner was right in his conclusion that extended period of limitation could not be invoked. On this ground alone, the appeals filed by the appellants are to succeed. We, thus, set aside the orders dated 08.04.2003 and 06.09.2005 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
