9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e than one and a half year, invoking extended period of limitation. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, there is no allegation raised in the show cause notice with regard to fraud or wilful suppression. The appellant being only job worker is not in a position to supply the details requested by the department. Further the show cause notice has accepted the figures taken as basis for claim of insurance made by NCCL for raising the demand of duty. In such circumstances, the appellants cannot be attributed with any intention to evade payment of duty. Further after receiving the information, the revenue has been in its bureaucratic slumber for more than a year to issue the show cause notice. As there is no evidence in the present case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elieved that NCCL would make good the payment of excise duty of the destroyed goods. The department called for information regarding details of value of goods etc destroyed in fire. As the information sought was available only with NCCL, the appellant requested NCCL to furnish details. Appellant could not supply the information to department as NCCL did not give the details to appellant even after making several requests. The Range Officer, issued summons to Sr. Manager NCCL and chairman of appellant. Thereafter information was furnished by NCCL. 2.2 The department then issued a show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation proposing to recover ₹ 87, 974/- being the duty on the finished goods destroyed and interest there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had made all efforts to get the requisite details from NCCL, the same was not given to the appellant by NCCL. The details were furnished by NCCL only after summons was issued to them by Department. The appellant could not furnish the details only because the information was not available with appellant. That after receiving the information from NCCL on 06-04-2010, the show cause notice is issued beyond the prescribed time on 15-09-2011. That there is no allegation of fraud or suppression in the show cause notice. He relied on the judgment rendered in Nestle India Ltd Vs CCE, Chandigargh 2009 (235) ELT 577(SC) and Suvidha Engineers India Ltd Vs CCE,Noida 2013 (32) STR 735 (Tri-Del) . He pleaded that the appeal may be allowed. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not get the information from NCCL. It is seen that only after issuance of summons by the Department, has NCCL woken up to supply the necessary details. Again though details were received on 06-04-2010, the show cause notice is issued after more than one and a half year, invoking extended period of limitation. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for appellant, there is no allegation raised in the show cause notice with regard to fraud or wilful suppression. The adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority has reached the conclusion that the delay to furnish information was intentional and that it amounts to suppression. I cannot agree with this view of the Revenue. The appellant being only job worker is not in a position to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
