9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the second question of law has to be answered in favour of the Revenue. Once the second question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue, it evolves as a corollary that the Revenue is entitled to invoke sub-section 4 of section 11A and seek the benefit of extended period of limitation from the relevant date. Therefore, the first question of law should also be answered in favour of the Revenue. - C.M.A.No.371 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2015 - V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND T. MATHIVANAN JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. ) This appeal is filed under section 35G of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1988. But, this exemption was rescinded by a Notification bearing No.64/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 with effect from 1.3.1994. 6. Subsequently, the exemption was re-introduced by a Notification bearing No.23/95-CE dated 16.3.1995. As a consequence, there was a period of little over one year during which, the waste and scrap were not exempted from payment of duty. To put in simple terms, no exemption was available during the period from 1.3.1994 to 16.3.1995. 7. However, the assessee cleared the goods without payment of duty, during the period from 1.3.1994 to 18.8.1994. The officers inspected the premises on 30.8.1994 and found out this aspect. 8. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 16.3.1998. The show cause notice was followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of admission on 17.2.2009, the second question as to whether there was an intention to evade payment of duty on the waste and scrap, has relevance only for the purpose of finding out whether the ordinary period of limitation or the extended period of limitation would apply to the case on hand. Therefore, we shall take up questions 1 and 2 together as they revolve around the fundamental issue as to whether the period of limitation would be one year or five years. 13. Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 obliges the Central Excise Officer to serve a notice within one year, whenever any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded for any reason other than the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing ignorance about the withdrawal of duty exemption during the period from 1.3.1994 to 18.3.1995. Insofar as the allegation of intention to evade payment of duty is concerned, the assessee had stated that if they had taken modvat credit on the input used in the manufacture of waste and scrap, then, it would have resulted in surplus credit even after paying duty on waste and scrap. The assessee did not show as to why there was some sale without raising any bills, as evidenced from file Number 15. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the original authority and the appellate authority were right in holding on a question of fact that there was intention to evade payment of duty. Without carefully appreciating the above facts, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
