9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entertaining contention which was raised by the assessee at the outset but not decided by the Tribunal while rendering its judgement on appeal. If that be so, the only question which remains to be decided is, whether while entertaining such a contention the Tribunal committed any legal error' Here also, we do not find any force in the contention of the Revenue. As asserted by the assessee and held by the Tribunal, the assessee had made all necessary declarations and, clearances were made with concurrence of the Department. There was no mis-declaration or a willful misstatement with a view to avoiding duty. The invocation of extended period of limitation, therefore, was rightly held not permissible. Tax Appeal is therefore, dismissed. - Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Brief facts are that, the assessee had approached the Tribunal challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities raising multiple contentions. The assessee had questioned application of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act on the ground of limitation as well as retrospective applicability thereof. The assessee has also questioned the application of extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act whereby that there was no willful misdeclaration or concealment of duty on part of the assessee. The Tribunal, by its first order dated 25.09.2015, noted the decision of Gujarat High Court observing that no rigid period of limit is prescribed under Section 11D of the Act and that therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded to decide such contention as under: 4.1 It is observed from the representing GP. Is that appellant has been showing duty paid through PLA, RG-23A Pt.II and set off claimed. The amount so debited was also shown collectively in the invoices: these facts are also coming clearly out of Para 17 of the Order-in-Original dated 29.05.1995. In view of the above factual matrix, appellant cannot be said to have any intention to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, extended period of five years is not attracted to the demand issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The period of demand is April 1990 to 19.9.1991 and show cause notice was issued on 01.11.93 and the demand of ₹ 30,88,632.47 issued under Section 11A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
