9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not interfere with the finding of the first appellate authority relating to the only basis on which the enhanced period of limitation was taken recourse to by the Department. In view of the above, we answer question with regard to limitation in favour of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - C. M. A. No. 2884 of 2006, M. P. No. 1 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2015 - V. Ramasubramanian And K. B. K. Vasuki, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. T. Ramesh For the Respondent : Mr. K. Mohanamurali JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) This appeal is filed by the assessee under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant and M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply, which was not accepted and an order of adjudication was passed on 11.8.1998. The order of adjudication was set aside by the first appellate authority on merits on 29.12.1998 Though the appellant had raised the question of limitation, the first appellate authority did not go into the question of limitation. This was in view of the fact that the first appellate authority accepted the contention that the brand name Aidees Newall belongs to the appellant. 7. However, the Department filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as against the order of the first appellate authority. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Department by order dated 22.6.2006. Therefore, the appellant has come up with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst which was framed as question (c) at the time of admission of this appeal. 10. Section 11A prescribes two different periods of limitation. The first is a period of one year and the second is a period of five years. In cases where, the duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, on account of any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, the period of limitation for the issue of a show cause notice is five years. But, in all other cases, the period of limitation is one year as seen from clause (a) of sub-section 1 of section 11A. 11. In the case on hand, the registration of the Company w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppression is not sustainable in view of the fact that all material facts including copy of the technical collaborating agreement and the facts with regard to use of trade marks were disclosed to the department by their Chairman in his statement dated 25.11.95 which was recorded even before the issuance of the registration certificate. 15. As against this portion of the order of the first appellate authority that there was no suppression, the Tribunal did not record any finding. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal appears to have taken up the appeal after seven years and disposed it of at one stroke. The positive case of the appellant is that they were not put on notice of the date of hearing. We are not going into the said question. 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
