9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which had become time-barred. If by efflux of time and in absence of availability of extended period of limitation, such show cause notice itself had become time-barred, any payment made voluntarily by the manufacturer cannot be viewed as one made under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Act. In the present case, we have already held that time for issuing such a notice was one year, which period had already expired. Accepting the stand of the Department that even in such a case once the payment of duty is made, interest liability would follow would bring about an incongruent situation. The recovery of the unpaid or short paid duty would become time-barred. If the manufacturer does not pay it voluntarily, it would not be possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 12.05.2006 for appropriating the amount of differential duty paid by the appellant and also to recovery of interest and penalty. We find the main ground taken by the appellant is that the differential duty demand which has been discharged by the appellant is itself not required to be done so as show-cause notice dated 12th May 2006 is blatantly time barred and not invoking any of the ingredients which would indicate that the appellant had suppressed the facts from the department. On scrutiny of the said show-cause notice we find it so. In the absence of any allegation that there was mis-statement/suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, the appellant's arguments that the show-cause notice being blatantly time barred woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression and intention to evade duty, it clearly means that sub-section (2B) is applicable where the normal period of limitation of 1 year is provided. 11. In the present case, when the period of limitation had already expired and when the extended period beyond one year was not available to the department as held by the Commissioner himself in his order-in-original, to our mind the respondent was not liable to pay even the basic duty. But for the respondent voluntarily making payment of such duty short-paid, it was not open for the Department to recover the same under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. In absence of any such voluntary payment, recovery of the unpaid duty would not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
